Melendres # 843 - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 843 - Ps Request For OSC Hearing

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 30
1
2
3
4
5
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

cwang@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
6
7
8
9
10
Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

for Plaintiffs listed on next page)
13
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
15
16
17
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
18
19
v.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF
LAW AND FACTS RE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AND REQUEST
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)

asegura@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

jcastillo@maldef.org
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

alai@law.uci.edu
401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

syoung@cov.com
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
hbyun@cov.com
Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

pdodson@cov.com
One City Center, 850 Tenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 662-5996
Facsimile: (202) 778-5996
Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

talbarran@cov.com
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 1
I.
Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating the Courts

December 23, 2011, Preliminary Injunction ............................................. 1
A.
Defendants In-Court Admissions and Deposition

Testimony Establish That They Failed to Comply with the
Preliminary Injunction ................................................................... 2
B.
Defendants Knowingly Continued Their Policy of

Detaining Persons Solely Based on Unlawful Presence
After Such Conduct Was Ruled Unlawful and Enjoined .............. 4
6
7
8
9
II.
Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating This Courts May

14, 2014, Order Concerning Collection of Video Evidence ..................... 9
III.
Defendants Numerous Acts of Defiance Support the Need for

Serious Sanctions To Compensate Plaintiffs and To Ensure Future
Compliance. ............................................................................................ 12
IV.
The Court Should Begin With Limited and Expedited Document

Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing on Civil Contempt Against
Defendants and Individual MCSO Personnel ......................................... 17
V.
16
Court Ordered Remedies Are Necessary To Compensate the

Plaintiffs and To Secure Future Compliance with Court Orders ............ 18
17
A.
The Court Should Order Defendants To Assist in the

Identification of Victims of Defendants Noncompliance
with the December 23, 2011, Preliminary Injunction, and
To Pay Compensation to Individual Victims ............................... 19
B.
The Court Should Order Compensation to the Plaintiff

Class as a Whole .......................................................................... 21
C.
The Court Should Order Injunctive Relief Provisions To

Ensure That Defendants Violations Stop, and That Future
Violations Do Not Occur ............................................................. 22
D.
The Court Should Order Attorneys Fees and Costs.................... 24
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 25
25
26
27
28
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2
Cases
Ahearn ex rel. Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Intl Longshore and Warehouse Union,
721 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 20
5
6
Commodity Futures Trading Commn v. Premex, Inc., 655 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1981) . 25
F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ......................................... 12
Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Corp., 702 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1983)
....................................................................................................................... 19, 22, 24
10
11
12
13
14
Intl Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) ............... 20, 22, 25
Lance v. Plummer, 353 F.2d 585 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 929
(1966)......................................................................................................................... 19
Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 825, Intl Union of Operating Engineers, 430 F.2d
15
16
1225 (3d Cir. 1970) ................................................................................................... 25
17
Perry v. ODonnell, 759 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................ 24
18
Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313 (9th Cir. 1998)................................ 17
19
Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended on
20
21
denial of rehg (Aug. 25, 1992) ............................................................................. 2, 12
22
United States v. Ayres, 166 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 1999) ................................................... 17
23
Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510 (9th Cir. 1992) ................... 17, 19, 22
24
Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Stanley, No. 2:07-cv-00954- GMS, 2009 WL 113563
25
26
(D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 2009) ............................................................................................. 12
27
Statutes
28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); .................................................................................................... 24

ii
Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following memorandum of law and facts in
support of the initiation of civil contempt proceedings against Defendants and certain
other command staff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO).
INTRODUCTION
Though Defendants have not yet disclosed numerous documents that may
support a finding of contempt of the Courts orders, there is already ample evidence on
which this Court could find Defendants in civil contempt for violating two separate
orders of the Court.
First, Defendants admit that they failed to take steps to comply with the Courts
10
December 23, 2011, preliminary injunction, a failure which predictably led to repeated
11
violations of that order. Second, and also by their own admission, Defendants directly
12
contravened this Courts May 14, 2014, order directing them to consult with the
13
Monitor to formulate a plan to quietly collect deputies self-recorded videos of traffic
14
stops, instead acting unilaterally and in a manner that may have led to the destruction
15
of evidence, and then misleading the Monitor as to their actions.
16
Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court initiate a civil contempt proceeding to
17
expeditiously vindicate the rights of the Plaintiff Class and compensate those injured
18
by the contempt. And because there appears already to be evidence supporting a
19
finding of criminal contempt, Plaintiffs also submit that the Court should refer these
20
matters for criminal contempt proceedings following the civil contempt proceedings.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ARGUMENT
I.
Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating the Courts December 23,

2011, Preliminary Injunction
The Courts preliminary injunction was entered on December 23, 2011. It
required changes in the widespread unconstitutional practices of the MCSO by

prohibiting MCSO and all of its officers . . . from detaining any person based only on
knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present
within the United States. Doc. 494 at 40, 5, affd by Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio,
1
695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012). Defendants committed civil contempt because, far from
taking the legally required all reasonable steps within their power to insure
compliance with the courts order[,] Stone v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 968 F.2d
850, 856 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended on denial of rehg (Aug. 25, 1992) (internal
quotations omitted), Defendants, by their own admission, failed to take the most basic
steps to comply with the Courts order, and apparently never intended to comply.
7
8
A. Defendants In-Court Admissions and Deposition Testimony Establish

That They Failed to Comply with the Preliminary Injunction
On November 20, 2014, Defendants revealed that they never transmitted the
10
Courts December 2011 preliminary injunction order to relevant MCSO personnel,
11
including deputies in the Human Smuggling Unit (HSU). Transcript of Nov. 20,
12
2014 Hearing (Nov. 20 Tr.) at 67 (MCSO has concluded, that this Courts order
13
was not communicated to the line troops in the HSU.), unsealed by Doc. 811. HSU
14
was the principal unit charged with the very activities enjoined. Defendants have
15
further admitted that news of the preliminary injunction was communicated by defense
16
counsel to three top commanders and the Lieutenant overseeing the HSU at MCSO.
17
Nov. 20 Tr. at 67-68 (We have identified an e-mail from Mr. Casey to Brian Sands,
18
Chief Brian Sands, Chief Jack MacIntyre, Chief Jerry Sheridan, and Lieutenant
19
Sousa.). And yet, Defendants admit, not one of those commanders communicated the
20
Courts preliminary injunction order to MCSO personnel.
21
The sworn testimony of command staff in a related matter, United States v.
22
Maricopa County, No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS (D. Ariz. filed May 10, 2012),
23
demonstrates that the commanders had the responsibility to communicate the Courts
24
order, and failed to do so. In depositions in the United States v. Maricopa County
25
case, Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, and Executive Chief (Ret.) Brian
26
Sands all testified that they took no action to communicate the Courts preliminary
27
injunction order to MCSO rank and file or otherwise ensure that those responsible for
28
2
interacting with civilians in the implementation of MCSO policy were aware of and
complied with the preliminary injunction.
Sheriff Arpaio testified that he was aware of the preliminary injunction when
the Court issued it but did not recall doing anything to ensure that MCSO complied
with the order. See Declaration of Anne Lai (Lai Decl.), Ex. B (Arpaio Dep.) at
65:13-68:18; see generally id. at 59:5-73:17. Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that it
would have been his responsibility as Chief Deputy to inform MCSO officers about
the preliminary injunction, see Lai Decl. Ex. D (Sheridan Dep.) at 122:13-18, but
that he assumed that Executive Chief Sands would take care of it, id. at 123:22-125:7.
10
Sheridan admitted that he did not communicate with Sands about this purported
11
delegation of responsibility, however, and did not know whether Sands understood he
12
had any responsibility to relay the Courts preliminary injunction to deputies. Id. at
13
124:14-125:7. Sands, on his part, responded to a question about whether he had
14
informed his subordinates about the Courts preliminary injunction by stating, Our
15
attorney, as I remember, handled all of that with our staff. See Lai Decl. Ex. C
16
(Sands Dep.) at 183:7-185:15. Lieutenant Sousa could not recall any electronic
17
bulletin board posting (or Briefing Board) being issued after the preliminary
18
injunction order. See Lai Decl. Ex. F (Sousa Dep.) at 178:6-23. Deputy Chief Jack
19
MacIntyre should also have taken responsibility for communicating the preliminary
20
injunction, as he is an attorney who works with outside counsel defending lawsuits
21
against Defendants, see Doc. 235-1 1-2, and previously was held responsible for
22
failing to communicate a document retention notice in this litigation, leading to the
23
spoliation of evidence and sanctions against Defendants, see Doc. 261 at 3.
24
25
26
27
28
3
1
2
In sum, Defendants own admissions establish that they took no stepsmuch

less the required all reasonable stepsto follow this Courts clear order.1
3
4
B. Defendants Knowingly Continued Their Policy of Detaining Persons

Solely Based on Unlawful Presence After Such Conduct Was Ruled
Unlawful and Enjoined
Since Defendants took no steps to implement and to obey the preliminary
injunction, MCSO continued to detain persons solely based on unlawful presence in
direct violation of the Courts order. See Doc. 494 at 40, 5 (prohibiting MCSO and
all of its officers . . . from detaining any person based only on knowledge or reasonable
belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present within the United States).
10
As set out below, Sheriff Arpaios public statements as to specific MCSO operations
11
reveal that he was not only aware of the continued use of the LEAR policy, but sought
12
to ensure that individuals held only on suspicion of unlawful presence were not
13
released. Sheriff Arpaio directed that if ICE refused to accept a person detained by
14
MCSO solely under the LEAR protocol, MCSO deputies should retain custody of that
15
person and attempt to transfer that person to the custody of U.S. Border Patrol. The
16
continued detention of individuals solely on the basis of suspected unlawful presence
17
is in clear violation of this Courts preliminary injunction.
18
As evidence disclosed thus far establishes, MCSO repeatedly detained persons
19
based solely on unlawful presence, after the Courts preliminary injunction prohibiting
20
that practice. While Plaintiffs have not had the opportunity to determine the full scope
21
or timeframe of the violations, Plaintiffs are aware of at least the following four
22
incidents in which individuals were held unlawfully on this basis alone. Given that
23
24
25
26
27
The above deposition testimony also establishes that Defendants failed to inform any
patrol officers of the preliminary injunction, see Arpaio Dep. 65:13-68:18; Sheridan
Dep. 122:13-18, 123:22-125:7; Sands Dep. 183:7-185:15; Sousa Dep. 178:6-23, not
merely that they failed to inform HSU officers, as Defendants admitted in court on
November 20, 2014, see Nov. 20 Tr. at 67.
28
4
MCSO has maintained an affirmative policy of detaining individuals based on
suspected unlawful presence alone, it is likely that there have been other similar
incidents yet to be uncovered.
First, on September 20, 2012, MCSO deputies detained five suspected illegal
aliens. See Declaration of Andre Segura (Segura Decl.), Ex. A at A3-A5 (News
Release, MCSO, ICE Refuses to Accept Illegal Aliens from Sheriffs Deputies During
Human Smuggling Operation, Sept. 21, 2012). The MCSO deputies detained the
suspects and summoned HSU officers to interview them. Id. at A3. The HSU officers
arrested three of them on human smuggling charges. Id. at A3-A4. The MCSO
10
deputies then continued to detain the two remaining individualswho were not
11
charged with any crimein order to transfer them to ICE custody. Id. MCSOs press
12
release states that the only basis for the detention of the two remaining individuals was
13
MCSOs belief that they were unlawfully present in the United States. See id. at A4
14
(Sheriffs detectives were unable to gather enough evidence on the remaining two
15
suspects to charge them with a state charge of human smuggling and attempted to turn
16
the suspects over to ICE as has been the practice during the last six years.). This
17
detention plainly violated the preliminary injunction.
18
The press release further states that the LEAR policy had been the practice
19
during the last six years, thus indicating that it had not been altered in response to the
20
preliminary injunction. See id. at A4. It is clear that MCSO considered the detentions
21
a routine application of policy. What made the operation noteworthy to MCSO was
22
that ICE refused to take the suspects. Id. at A3. The press release also reveals that
23
Sheriff Arpaio had been actively considering the possibility that ICE might cease to
24
accept alleged undocumented immigrants from MCSO in this manner, and had devised
25
a back up plan to turn them over to the Border Patrol instead. Id. at A4 (I expected
26
that it [ICEs refusal] would happen eventually, so I had a back up plan in place which
27
was to take these illegal immigrants not accepted by ICE to the Border Patrol, Sheriff
28
5
Arpaio said.). In other words, Sheriff Arpaio was well aware that MCSO was
continuing to implement the LEAR policy even though, as he has admitted in
deposition testimony in the United States case, he was aware of this Courts
preliminary injunction at the time it issued (see supra at 3). The September 21, 2012,
press release closes with the Sheriffs announcement that he would continue his
immigration detention policy: Regardless of the Obama Administration[]s policy, I
am going to continue to enforce all of the illegal immigration laws. Id. at A4-A5.
Second, on September 26, 2012, MCSO again detained individuals based on
civil immigration violations alone, this time in the course of a worksite raid seeking
10
suspects believed to be using false identification in employment. See Lai Decl. Ex. A
11
(Brockman Dep.) at 225:23-235:4; Lai Decl. Ex. E (Almanza Dep.) at 218:7-
12
223:24; Lai Decl. Ex. G (Jakowinicz Dep.) at 150:8-154:3; Lai Decl. Ex. H; Lai
13
Decl. Ex. I. During the operation, MCSO made a traffic stop of a vehicle that was
14
leaving the site. Brockman Dep. 233:11-23. MCSO determined that two of the
15
occupants were not current employees and therefore that no state charges could be
16
brought against them. Id. at 234:11-20. MCSO then detained the occupants solely on
17
suspicion that they were unlawfully present in the United States, in violation of the
18
preliminary injunction. See id.; id. at 229:17-18. As with the September 20, 2012
19
detentions, this was a typical application of MCSO policy. See id. at 234:19-20 (We
20
did what we normally [did], which was to call ICE ERO or DRO.); Jakowinicz Dep.
21
153:10-22 (it was protocol at the time that when a person admitted to being unlawfully
22
present, HSU would detain them and call ICE). After ICE declined to take the
23
individuals into custody, MCSO called Border Patrol and then had a couple posse
24
units drive the detainees to the Border Patrol office south of Gila Bend, see Brockman
25
Dep. 234:19-22, 234:23-235:1, a distance of approximately 66.5 miles.
26
27
MCSO issued a press release about the incident the next day, noting Sheriff
Arpaios personal role: [ICE] refused to arrest two illegal aliens that were looking for
28
6
work while deputies were investigating the establishment. Arpaio refused to allow the
suspected illegal aliens to be released into the streets and ordered the deputies to
transport these two suspects to the United States Border Patrol. See Segura Decl. Ex.
A at A6-A7 (News Release, MCSO, Sheriffs Deputies Execute Search Warrant at
Construction Company: Criminal Employment Investigation Nets 17 Arrests of
Suspected Illegal Aliens, Sept. 27, 2012). The conduct described in the press release
violated the preliminary injunction and the U.S. Constitution.
8
9
Third, on October 8, 2012, HSU officers stopped a vehicle with two men and
again detained them based solely on suspected civil immigration violations. See id. at
10
A8 (News Release, MCSO, 2nd Time ICE Refuses to Accept Illegal Alien From
11
Sheriffs Deputies Since September, Oct. 9, 2012). The driver was arrested on a state-
12
law charge of operating a motor vehicle without a license. Id. Meanwhile, MCSO
13
maintained custody of the passenger and attempted to turn him over to ICE. Id. After
14
ICE refused to take the passenger, MCSO transported him to the Border Patrol office
15
in Casa Grande. Id. Sheriff Arpaio is quoted as saying, My back up plan is still in
16
place and we will continue to take these illegal aliens not accepted by ICE to the
17
Border Patrol. The press release concludes: [t]his is the 82nd arrest made over the
18
last month. Id.
19
In each of these three incidences, MCSO kept the individuals in custody in
20
violation of the Courts preliminary injunction during the time it took (a) to
21
communicate with ICE, (b) to await ICEs decision not to take custody, (c) to
22
subsequently communicate with Border Patrol, and (d) to transport the individuals to
23
Border Patrol custody.
24
25
26
27
28
7
Fourth, although Plaintiffs notified Defendants of the problematic nature of
these stops,2 Defendants apparently nevertheless continued to detain individuals
unlawfully on the basis of their immigration status. On November 1, 2012, MCSO
officers engaged in what Defendants have referred to as the Korean stop during a
status conference before this Court. See Nov. 20 Tr. at 67. The documents detailing
this stop are under seal, but Defendants have indicated in an unsealed portion of a
court proceeding that the stop occurred during an immigration interdiction patrol and
that MCSO deputies detained persons on suspicion of unlawful presence, in violation
of the preliminary injunction. Id.
10
As discussed above, there are likely other incidents of violations not known to
11
Plaintiffs. In sum, well after December 23, 2011, Defendants policy of detaining
12
undocumented immigrants based on their immigration status remained wholly intact
13
and was knowingly endorsed, if not personally directed, by Sheriff Arpaio. The only
14
apparent change after the Courts preliminary injunction order was that pursuant to the
15
Sheriffs new directive, if ICE refused to take individuals held solely on suspected
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
On October 11, 2012, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter expressing serious concerns
about the September 20, September 26, and October 8, 2012 events. See Segura Decl.
Ex. A at A1-A2. On October 18, 2012, Defendants responded, insisting that these
events did not constitute violations of the preliminary injunction, apparently because
U.S. Border Patrol had, in response to MCSOs calls, directed MCSO to deliver the
already detained persons to a Border Patrol station or, in the alternative in one
instance, to hold them for transport. See Segura Decl. Ex. B. But this course of action,
which necessitates detaining an individual pending an inquiry to federal authorities
based on nothing more than suspected civil immigration violations, did in fact violate
the Courts injunction. As this Court subsequently found, the LEAR policy that
requires a deputy to (1) to detain persons she or he believes only to be in the country
without authorization, (2) to contact MCSO supervisors, and then (3) to await contact
with [federal officials] pending a determination how to proceed, results in an
unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment and violates the Courts
preliminary injunction. Doc. 579, May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, 4, 113-14; see also id. at 114 (The Court further concludes, as a matter of law,
that the MCSO has violated the explicit terms of this Courts preliminary injunction set
forth in its December 23, 2011 order because the MCSO continues to follow the LEAR
policy and the LEAR policy violates the injunction.).
28
8
civil immigration violations, MCSO would call Border Patrol. Through this practice,
Defendants repeatedly violated the preliminary injunction.
II.
There is also ample evidence to show that Defendants were in contempt of a
5
6
7
8
separate order by this Court concerning the necessary role of the Court-appointed
Monitor in the investigation arising from the arrest and death of former MCSO Deputy
Charley Armendariz.
On May 14, 2014, in a now-unsealed proceeding, counsel for the Defendants
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating This Courts May 14, 2014,

Order Concerning Collection of Video Evidence
revealed that MCSO discovered about 900 hours of video recordings of Deputy
Armendarizs traffic stops in his home. Transcript of May 14, 2014 Hearing (May 14
Tr.) at 45, unsealed by Doc. 706. None of these recordings had been officially logged
into an MCSO database or turned over to Plaintiffs during discovery.3 Id. at 45-66.
Armendariz had recorded these videos using a dashboard camera and an eyeglassmounted camera. Id. Upon questioning, Chief Deputy Sheridan further revealed that
MCSO had purchased and installed Armendarizs dashboard camera, along with
dashboard cameras for other deputies, and that MCSO was also aware that some
deputies recorded their activities with body-mounted cameras. Id. at 52 (THE
COURT: Was the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office aware that some of its officers
were recording traffic stops? CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIDAN: The best way to answer
that, Your Honor, is the dash cams would have been purchased and installed by the
22
23
24
25
26
27
As the Court has noted, these videos should have been produced during discovery.
Question Four of Plaintiffs First Set of Requests for Production, dated February 25,
2009, requested [a]ll documents relating to all traffic stops performed by every
MCSO supervisor, officer, posse member, or volunteer for years 2005 to present that
include information such as the location, time, and duration of the stop; the reason for
the stop; the questions asked of the drivers and passengers; etc. See Declaration of
Jessie Baird, Ex. A at 7, 4. That Request for Production also defined documents
specifically to include video tapes. Id. at 3, 11.
28
9
Sheriffs Office, so the answer would be yes, to some extent.); id. at 57 (I do believe
that there are other deputies that have recorded traffic stops and other activities with
their own purchased video cameras.). Sheridan stated that he did not know how many
dashboard cameras were in existence when he took over his current duties in 2010 or
what happened to the recordings from those cameras. Id. at 53, 57. Sheridan also
stated that MCSO had, until recently, not had any policy governing deputies self-
recording of traffic stops. Id. at 55, 57-58.
Both Plaintiffs and the Court expressed substantial concern about these
recordings, MCSOs failure to disclose them, and the possibility that deputies might
10
destroy incriminating recordings in response to a request for production. See, e.g., id.
11
at 56-61, 79-81. The Court mentioned that it could order subpoenas requiring every
12
MCSO officer with videos and other pertinent information to disclose them, id. at 59,
13
but Defendants asked the Court to allow us to do it in a softer manner than
14
subpoenas, id. at 60. The Court allowed such an approach, but stated that it expected
15
a thought-through plan . . . in which you can quietly gather such material. Id. at 61.
16
The Court therefore directed Defendants to cooperate completely with my monitor,
17
id. at 72, and to work with the Monitor on a plan that [the Monitor] can approve thats
18
your best thinking about how you can, without resulting in any destruction of
19
evidence, gather all the recordings, id. at 75. The Court also directed Defendants to
20
bring any disagreements with the Monitor to the attention of the Court. Id. at 73, 94,
21
96. Defendants assented, id. at 72-73, 96, noting that the Monitor had already
22
provided some good advice that MCSO would incorporate into how we approach
23
this situation, id. at 76.
24
Within hours of assenting to the Courts clear directions, Defendants acted in a
25
manner inconsistent with these mandates and their representations to the Court, as well
26
as with best practices for the critical and complex investigation of MCSO personnel.
27
These events of May 14, 2014, have been recounted in detail by the Monitor, who was
28
10
himself a witness to some of these events. In brief, after the hearing, in the early
afternoon of May 14, 2014, Arpaio, Sheridan, and counsel met and decided, without
consulting with the Monitor and therefore in violation of the Courts direction during
the earlier status conference, to collect any videos of traffic stops in the hands of
MCSO personnel by sending an email to division commanders. See Doc. 795-1
(Monitors Report) at 4. Deputy Chief David Trombi was then summoned into the
meeting and directed, by Sheridan, to send the email. Id.; Nov. 20 Tr. at 59. Sheridan,
Captain Holmes, and defense counsel then held a two-and-a-half hour meeting with the
Monitor to discuss how to collect the videos, without disclosing that they had already
10
formulated and executed a plan that contradicted the Courts directions to collect the
11
videos quietly and in cooperation with the Monitor. See Monitors Report at 3; May
12
14 Tr. at 61, 72, 75. Sheriff Arpaio briefly attended the latter meeting. Monitors
13
Report at 3.
14
Later that day, Sheridan informed the Monitor of Trombis email, which had
15
already been disseminated widely to MCSO personnel. Id. Initially, Sheridan claimed
16
that Trombi had sent the email without Sheridans knowledge. Id. It was not until
17
later that evening that Sheridan revealed to the Monitor that there had been an earlier
18
meeting in which MCSO had directed Trombis email. Id. And it was not until the
19
November 20, 2014 hearing that Sheridan revealed, through counsel, that he himself
20
had authorized the Trombi email. Nov. 20 Tr. at 59. The Monitor found Sheridans
21
shifting explanations and lack of memory not credible. Monitors Report at 4.
22
On May 15, 2014, the Court issued an order under seal, directing MCSO to
23
collect quickly certain information relating to officers video recording of traffic stops.
24
Doc. 693, unsealed by Doc. 706. MCSO then sent an email to all deputies, containing
25
a self-reporting survey linked to the Courts order. At that point, any possibility of
26
collecting the recordings quietly, as directed by the Court, had been foiled by
27
28
11
Sheridans direction to Trombi and by Trombis subsequent email widely disseminated
to MCSO personnel.
By sending the Sheridan-Trombi email without consulting with the Monitor
and then participating in a meeting in which they made a show of agreeing upon a
different course of action with the Monitor, without mentioning that the Sheridan-
Trombi email had already been sent outDefendants violated the Courts specific and
definite order to cooperate completely with my monitor in gathering the videos.
Because that violation is already established, [t]he burden . . . shifts to the contemnors
to demonstrate why they were unable to comply. F.T.C. v. Affordable Media, 179
10
F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). The excuses that Sheridan made to the Monitor are
11
not credible on their face and, even if they were credible, would not establish that
12
Defendants were unable to comply. See also Stone, 968 F.2d at 856 (the law
13
requires enjoined parties to perform[ ] all reasonable steps within their power to
14
insure compliance with the courts order[]); Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Stanley, No.
15
2:07-cv-00954- GMS, 2009 WL 113563, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 2009) (there is no
16
willfulness requirement or good faith defense for civil contempt).
17
III.
18
Defendants Numerous Acts of Defiance Support the Need for Serious

Sanctions To Compensate Plaintiffs and To Ensure Future Compliance.
19
The two bases on which Plaintiffs move for contempt are not isolated matters,
20
but rather part of a pattern of consistent disregard by Defendants of this Courts orders.
21
As set forth by Plaintiffs during the October 28, 2014 hearing, on numerous occasions,
22
Defendants have directly contravened and misrepresented this Courts trial findings
23
and injunctions. This history of misconduct solidifies the need for strong sanctions to
24
prevent further recurrence and to compensate Plaintiffs who have been injured.
25
Defendants failure to comply with this Courts orders dates back to the start of
26
this litigation. This Court has previously issued sanctions against Defendants for
27
conduct nearly identical to the present issue of Defendants failure to properly preserve
28
and produce video recordings made by deputies. In 2010, the Court found that
12
Defendants had failed to preserve and actively destroyed documents that they had an
obligation to produce for purposes of discovery. Doc. 261. As detailed in that order,
Defendants had similarly failed to properly communicate down the chain of command
that certain documents must be preserved. In fact, Deputy Chief MacIntyre testified
with respect to this previous spoliation of evidence that he must have simply, albeit
regrettably, forgot to forward [the demand for documents] to others at the MCSO. Id.
at 3. Unfortunately, monetary sanctions against Defendants, in the form of Plaintiffs
attorneys fees and costs, were insufficient to prevent history from repeating itself.
Since this earlier transgression, Defendants have displayed little regard for
10
ensuring compliance with this Courts orders. In addition to the violations of their
11
earlier spoliation of evidence, this Courts preliminary injunction and the failure to
12
preserve video recordings, Defendants have directly violated this Courts orders on
13
several other occasions. On October 28, 2014, the Court conducted a hearing to
14
address a public statement by Defendant Arpaioregarding a law enforcement
15
operation in the town of Guadalupe that this Court held unconstitutionalthat [w]ith
16
the same circumstances, Id do it all over again.4 This Court found that Arpaios
17
statement demonstrated that MCSO was not in compliance with this Courts October
18
24, 2013, Supplemental Injunction order and, as a result, ordered Defendant Arpaio to
19
personally complete the training required of all MCSO sworn personnel and posse
20
members. Transcript of Oct. 28, 2014 Hearing at 64-65. Clearly, this remedy and the
21
others ordered so far by the Court have not been adequate to deter Defendants
22
repeated violations, as demonstrated by the long history of Defendants defiance of this
23
Courts orders.
24
25
26
27
Jacques Billeaud, Judge unleashes criticism on Arpaios office, Associated Press,

Oct. 28, 2014, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/hearing-to-focuson-investigations-of-ex-officer; see also Doc. 746 3.
28
13
Since the Court issued its trial findings and remedial order, Defendants have
consistently misrepresented those decisions both internally and publicly. Shortly after
this Courts May 24, 2013, trial findings, Defendant Arpaio stated publicly that the
Courts finding of liability was based only on faulty training by the federal
government, ignoring the several other findings of independent constitutional
violations that permeated the MCSO itself.5 As of at least January 2014, Defendant
Arpaio continued to blame the federal government for all of the Courts findings,
going as far as to send a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding payment by
the federal government for all litigation costs as a result of this case. In the letter,
10
Defendant Arpaio again laid the blame on the federal government, stating that the
11
Court determined that MCSO had violated the constitutional rights of the class
12
members because some MCSO deputies acted and relied on the ICE training and
13
education provided to them in the 287(g) program which was, in fact, contrary to Ninth
14
Circuit law and stating, contrary to the Courts actual findings in the May 2013 order,
15
that [b]ut for [this training], there would have been no adverse finding against the
16
MCSO.6 Other members of MCSO top command staff, including Chiefs Sheridan
17
and Trombi, also made misrepresentations of this Courts May 24, 2013, trial order by
18
inaccurately describing the order as limited to a finding of racial profiling by only two
19
MCSO deputies or a showing that people with Hispanic surnames were held 14
20
seconds longer than people without.7 And just two days after this Court ordered
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Sheriff Arpaio responds to federal judge ruling on racial profiling, YouTube, May
29, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w38eFaTmufY.
6
Letter from Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., Jan.
16, 2014,
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Arpaio%20Letter%20to%20Holder.pd
f.
7
See, e.g., Jerry Sheridan, Here are the facts in profiling suit vs. MCSO, Ariz.
Republic, Jan. 12, 2014, http://archive.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20140112factsprofiling-suit-mcso.html.
28
14
Defendants to issue a corrective statement to address all of these inaccuracies, news
outlets reported that Defendant Arpaio had sent out a fundraising letter in which he
stated that there have been rampant, UNFOUNDED charges of racism and racial
profiling in my office.8
These misstatements by the Sheriff and his top command staff are not merely
statements of opinion; in the command structure of a law enforcement agency, they
have a direct impact on deputies conduct because they represent the official views of
the highest policy makers within MCSO as to how court orders should be interpreted
and observed. By repeatedly misrepresenting the Courts orders, Defendants failed to
10
properly inform all MCSO employees of the full scope of the Courts findings and the
11
requirements under the Courts injunctions.
12
Defendants have repeatedly and openly defied the Courts authority. In an
13
August 2013 fundraising letter, Defendant Arpaio stated that he wont stand for a
14
Court-appointed monitor and insinuated that MCSO will continue enforcing
15
immigration laws, stating that [m]illions enter our country illegally every year with
16
very little consequence and that he is working day and night to protect our land and
17
keep Arizona and America safe.9 Just days after the Court issued the October 2013
18
Supplemental Injunction, Sheriff Arpaio announced plans for a large-scale operation
19
and outwardly mocked this Courts requirement that MCSO engage in community
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, Sheriff Arpaio: Donate in case I run for governor, Ariz.
Republic, Mar. 26, 2014,
http://www.azcentral.com/story/politicalinsider/2014/03/26/joe-arpaio-consideringrun-for-governor/6916521; Letter from Sheriff Joe Arpaio,
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arpaio-donation.pdf.
9
Stephen Lemons, Arpaios Letter Shows Why Judge Snow Must Appoint a Monitor
in Melendres, Phoenix New Times, August 29, 2013,
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-08-29/news/arpaio-s-letter-shows-why-judgesnow-must-appoint-a-monitor-in-melendres/full/; Letter from Sheriff Joe Arpaio,
http://httpmyblogblogspotcom-norsu.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html.
28
15
outreach to remedy past violations and built trust with the community, stating that
some courts want community outreach. I just started it.10 During a briefing prior to
that operation, Chief Deputy Sheridan went as far as to direct deputies not to take
seriously the Courts order that they track the race or ethnicity of individuals whom
they stop. See Recording of Oct. 18, 2013 Crime Suppression Briefing. After that
operation, Defendant Arpaio stated to the media that he was not concerned about
being in violation of the Courts order because no one is going to take away my
authority I have under the constitution.11
Further, as documented in the Monitors Report, Defendants not only defied the
10
Courts May 14, 2014, order about the collection of video recordings, but also
11
demonstrated contempt for the Monitors role throughout that investigation, which
12
undermined the effectiveness and likely outcome of the investigation. Doc. 795-1.
13
Such contempt was also displayed in Defendants recalcitrant response to the
14
Monitors report. Doc. 755.
15
Defendants transgressions of this Courts orders are abundant. In the
16
command structure of a law enforcement agency, Defendants misrepresentations and
17
defiant attitude have direct consequences because they set the tone for, and give
18
direction to, inferior officers in the rank and file of MCSO. In determining the nature
19
and extent of sanctions against Defendants, this Court should take these prior flagrant
20
contraventions into account. See Whittaker Corp. v. Execuair Corp., 953 F.2d 510,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
10
CBS, Sheriff Arpaio Defends Latest Crime Sweep, Oct. 19, 2013, updated Nov. 2,
2013, http://www.kpho.com/story/23737670/sheriff-arpaio-defends-latest-crimesweep.
11
Stephen Lemons, Arpaios Sweep of the West Valley Could Turn Judge Snows
Order Into a Paper Tiger, Phoenix New Times, Oct. 24, 2013,
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2013-10-24/news/arpaio-s-sweep-of-the-westvalley-could-turn-judge-snow-s-order-into-a-paper-tiger/full/; CBS, supra n.10.
28
16
516 (9th Cir. 1992) (taking into account Defendants flagrant contempt in affirming
the propriety of a high fine as a civil sanction).
IV.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Court Should Begin With Limited and Expedited Document Discovery
and an Evidentiary Hearing on Civil Contempt Against Defendants and
Individual MCSO Personnel
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order to show
cause why Defendants and specific individuals named below should not be held in
civil contempt, and schedule an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Ayres, 166
F.3d 991, 995-96 (9th Cir. 1999) ([C]ivil contempt may be imposed in an ordinary
civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, and, although a fullblown evidentiary hearing is not required, the Ninth Circuit do[es] not encourage the
imposition of contempt sanctions on the papers.); Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc.,
140 F.3d 1313, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998) (a non-party can be held in contempt if he (1) had
notice of the courts order and (2) either abetted the defendants violation or is legally
identified with him). Plaintiffs also request that subpoenas issue to each of the
individuals named below and to any further witnesses that Plaintiffs timely name by a
date set by the Court, or subsequent to that date if new information comes to light.
Sheriff Arpaio should be subject to contempt proceedings for the reasons set
forth above. He is a named defendant with full knowledge of the Courts orders and
the greatest ability to implement them. His knowing violations of the orders warrant a
contempt finding.
Chief Deputy Sheridan should be subject to contempt proceedings for causing
and abetting Defendants violation of both the December 23, 2011, preliminary
injunction and the May 14, 2014, order. Sheridan must answer to the first charge
because there is evidence that it was his responsibility to inform MCSO officers about
the preliminary injunction, but that he did not do so. See Sheridan Dep. 122:13-18;
Nov. 20 Tr. at 67. Sheridan must answer to the second charge because he directed
Deputy Chief Trombi to send the May 14, 2014 email, and then misrepresented his
28
17
actions to the Court-appointed Monitor. See Nov. 20 Tr. at 59; Monitors Report at 3-
4.
Executive Chief Sands, Deputy Chief MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Sousa should
be subject to contempt proceedings for abetting Defendants violation of the December
23, 2011 preliminary injunction. All three, as well as Chief Deputy Sheridan, received
the email from counsel about the preliminary injunction but failed to take action to
communicate it to others at MCSO and to direct that MCSO follow the Courts order.
See Nov. 20 Tr. at 67-68.
Deputy Chief Trombi should be subject to contempt proceedings for
10
participating in Defendants violation of the May 14, 2014 order, by sending the email
11
that contravened the Courts order. See Monitors Report at 3-4.
12
In addition, Plaintiffs request that the Court order Defendants to respond to
13
limited document discovery on an expedited basis, in advance of an evidentiary
14
hearing.12
15
V.
16
Court Ordered Remedies Are Necessary To Compensate the Plaintiffs and

To Secure Future Compliance with Court Orders
17
Plaintiffs will not be in a position to recommend the full scope of remedies
18
warranted in light of Defendants violations of the Courts orders until they have had
19
an opportunity to engage in limited document discovery and question MCSO
20
personnel during an evidentiary hearing. However, based upon Defendants
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
12
At the December 4, 2014 hearing, Sheriff Arpaios counsel, Mr. McDonald,

requested that he be provided any information that youre turning over to the United
States Attorney. Transcript of Dec. 4, 2014 Hearing at 30. Plaintiffs requested the
opportunity to research that request. Id. at 31. Plaintiffs do not object to Mr.
McDonald receiving unsealed information that is provided to the United States
Attorney. To the extent this Court comes into possession of information that is not in
the public record and pertains to potential criminal contempt or other criminal
misconduct by Sheriff Arpaio, Mr. McDonald should receive that information pursuant
to the normal processes defined by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, unless he
can identify authority supporting earlier or more expansive disclosure.
28
18
admissions and the evidence that has already come to light, Plaintiffs submit that the
following remedies are justified and minimally needed in order (1) to compensate the
Plaintiff Class for harms suffered as a result of Defendants noncompliance with the
Courts orders and (2) to stop ongoing harms and to prevent future noncompliance to
the detriment of the Plaintiff Class. See Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing
Corp., 702 F.2d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S.
364, 370 (1966)) (two purposes of civil contempt are to compensate the moving party
for injuries arising from noncompliance and to compel obedience to the courts order);
see also Whittaker, 953 F.2d at 517-18 (district court could properly use its coercive
10
civil contempt authority to prohibit the contemnor corporation from engaging in the
11
airline parts business until the corporation demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court
12
that it would comply with the courts prior injunction in good faith); Lance v.
13
Plummer, 353 F.2d 585, 591-92 (5th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 929 (1966)
14
(district court could properly use its coercive civil contempt authority to prohibit
15
deputy sheriff who had violated civil rights injunction from acting as a law
16
enforcement officer until the officer satisfied the court that he would comply with the
17
injunction in good faith).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. The Court Should Order Defendants To Assist in the Identification of

Victims of Defendants Noncompliance with the December 23, 2011,
Preliminary Injunction, and To Pay Compensation to Individual
Victims
Defendants violations of the Courts preliminary injunction ordera direct
result of the actions (and in some cases failures) of the MCSO command staff that
Plaintiffs identify above as proposed targets of contempt proceedingscaused the
illegal detentions of members of the Plaintiff class and others. Each of those
individuals who have been detained in violation of the Courts preliminary injunction
should be compensated for their unconstitutional detention in violation of this Courts
preliminary injunction order in an amount commensurate to the length of his or her
detention and any other facts particular to the harm suffered. Such a compensatory
19
fine is proper in a civil contempt proceeding as it makes the Plaintiff whole for harms
suffered from the Defendants noncompliance with the Courts orders.13 See Intl
Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829 (1994) (citing United
States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947)). Plaintiffs intend to submit
detailed requests for damages after identifying such individuals and investigating the
extent of the harms they have suffered.
The Court should order Defendants to take steps to identify and assist Plaintiffs
in locating all victims of illegal detentions pursuant to MCSOs policy and practice of
continuing to detain individuals based solely on suspected unlawful presence in the
10
United States after the Court enjoined that practice on December 23, 2011. Defendants
11
should work in cooperation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs counsel to determine what
12
steps would be useful. At a minimum, they should disclose the following information:
13
1) Identification documents seized by MCSO personnel from apparent

members of the Plaintiff class;14
14
15
2) All individuals who were the subject of any ICE or CBP inquiry and/or
16
detained by MCSO after December 23, 2011 based on suspected unlawful
17
presence, and who were not charged with or cited for any crime;
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
13
This compensation is not necessarily limited to members of the Plaintiff class. See
Ahearn ex rel. Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Intl Longshore and Warehouse Union,
721 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013) (civil contempt sanctions may be awarded to nonparties where doing so [is] directly necessary to enforce an injunction).
14
Plaintiffs have so far not received from Defendants the identity documents that
Defendants recently described to the Court, which were found in the possession of
former HSU deputies in November 2014, see Nov. 20 Tr. at 47-50, even though
Plaintiffs requested those documents on December 3, 2014. Plaintiffs should have
access to this information, so that they may conduct their own follow-up inquiries into
the circumstances in which such documents were seized by MCSO deputies, and
whether the owners of these identity documents were detained in violation of the
Courts preliminary injunction order.
28
20
3) All information concerning the circumstances and length of any detention
described in point (2) above, including but not limited to MCSO incident
reports, departmental reports, field interview cards, traffic stop data
collection forms, CAD data and recordings or MDT records, video or audio
recordings, and officer or supervisor notes.
4) All communications, in any form, between MCSO and CBP or ICE after
December 23, 2011, concerning the immigration status or custody status of
any individual in MCSO custody or detention; and
5) A description of all forms in which any communication described in point
10
(4) above might be documented, including radio, telephonic, or electronic
11
communications by a MCSO deputy on patrol to CBP and ICE.
12
In addition, the Court should order individual MCSO deputies and supervisors
13
involved in any such detentions to testify at an evidentiary hearing, as set forth below,
14
so that Plaintiffs counsel may question them about the MCSO policies and practices
15
that permitted such detentions to occur and the extent of unlawful detentions, despite
16
the Courts order prohibiting them.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs also intend to take additional measures to identify and locate potential
victims, such as by seeking relevant information from federal officials.
B. The Court Should Order Compensation to the Plaintiff Class as a
Whole
Defendants obstinate, continued enforcement of the LEAR policy caused
untold numbers of Plaintiff class members to spend 18 months living in fear that they
would be unlawfully seized by Defendants and further damaged the relationship
between the Latino community and the MCSO. The Plaintiff class as a whole should
be compensated for this harm, potentially by an award from Defendants to a non-profit
organization or organizations (other than Plaintiffs counsel) that works with the
Latino community in Maricopa County to educate members about their civil and
constitutional rights. The Court could take additional steps to ensure the award would
21
go towards services that would substantially benefit the Plaintiff class and be related to
the issues in this lawsuit.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. The Court Should Order Injunctive Relief Provisions To Ensure That

Defendants Violations Stop, and That Future Violations Do Not Occur
Defendants separate violations of the Courts December 2011 preliminary
injunction order and the May 2014 order directing Defendants to cooperate with the
Monitor in the collection of video recordings demonstrate persistent, structural
command and supervision problems at MCSO that leave the members of the Plaintiff
Class at risk for ongoing violations of their constitutional rights. Accordingly, the
Court should order additional injunctive and remedial relief, as follows:
1)
Communication of court orders and other litigation-related matters to
MCSO personnel: Defendants admitted failure to communicate a critical federal court

order to MCSO personnel, coming after admitted spoliation of evidence after a similar
failure of communication earlier in this litigation, demonstrates the need for (a) a
thorough evaluation of MCSO policies and practices concerning the communication of
court orders and document preservation notices and reform of those policies and
practices, in cooperation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs counsel; (b) a court order
putting Defendants on notice of the likely need to increase the amount of such fines
upon future violations, and possibly setting out a conditional fine schedule. Such a
conditional schedule serves the purpose of coercing future compliance with the Courts
orders and therefore is a proper remedy in civil contempt. See Falstaff Brewing Corp.,
702 F.2d at 780; Intl Union, 512 U.S. at 827. Such a conditional coercive fine is
especially warranted where a contemnor, like Defendant Arpaio and other MCSO
command staff here, have a record of flagrant violations of prior court orders as set
forth above in Section III. See Whittaker, 953 F.2d at 516.
2)
Procedures for immediate notification to Plaintiffs representatives and
the Monitor of future immigration detentions: To ensure that future immigrationrelated detentions do not go undetected, in addition to the current provisions in the
22
Courts Supplemental Injunction/Order, MCSO should be required to notify Plaintiffs
and the Monitor within 24 hours of any traffic stop involving MCSO personnel in
which ICE or CBP is contacted and/or an individual is questioned about his or her
citizenship or immigration status. All information concerning the circumstances and
length of any such stop, including but not limited to, MCSO incident reports,
departmental reports, field interview cards, traffic stop data collection forms, CAD
data and recordings or MDT records, video recordings, and officer or supervisor notes,
should be disclosed to Plaintiffs and the Monitor as soon as possible.
3)
Procedures for collection, disposition, and chain of custody of evidence:
10
The information revealed so far demonstrates that MCSOs policies and procedures
11
concerning the collection and disposition of evidence, including possessions seized
12
during traffic stops and video recordings of traffic stops, are utterly inadequate.
13
Defendants admit that it was common knowledge at MCSO that deputies have for
14
years used both MCSO-issued and personally-purchased video cameras to record
15
traffic stops and other activities, but that there has been no MCSO policy concerning
16
the collection and retention of such video recordings. Similarly, the Armendariz and
17
related investigations have revealed that MCSO personnel have retained items seized
18
during patrol (including identity documents, vehicle license plates, and purses and
19
other personal belongings) without properly delivering them to the official
20
evidence/property unit or even logging them. This is unacceptable by any standard
21
and has led to the current situation in which the parties to this action are unable to
22
readily identify the owners of any item or to associate any given item of evidence to a
23
traffic stop or other MCSO law enforcement action.
24
Plaintiffs have already proposed to the Defendants that the parties engage in a
25
collaborative process to formulate a policy governing the use of MCSO-issued body-
26
mounted video cameras. Such a policy should govern all video recordings made by
27
MCSO personnel. In addition, the Court should order new injunctive relief to ensure
28
23
that MCSO promulgates and follows a proper policy on the seizure and chain of
custody for all evidence seized by MCSO personnel.
4)
Misconduct investigations and civilian complaints: The limited evidence
revealed so far reveals serious deficiencies in MCSOs procedures for handling civilian
complaints and internal investigations. First, the conduct of MCSO command staff in
the Armendariz-related investigationsincluding the Sheridan-Trombi email sent in
disregard of the plan agreed upon in Court, to quietly collect video recordings without
triggering possible destruction of evidence, demonstrates that MCSOs internal
investigation policies and practices fall short of generally accepted standardseven
10
when the highest levels of command staff are directly involved and even under the eye
11
of the Court and the Court-appointed Monitor. These failures come after numerous
12
investigative deficiencies revealed by the failure of MCSO supervisors and
13
commanders to adequately address numerous civilian complaints against Deputy
14
Armendariz. Plaintiffs submit that new MCSO policies and practices relating to the
15
handling of civilian complaints and internal investigations are needed to protect the
16
interests of the Plaintiff Class. Plaintiffs will be requesting additional supplemental
17
injunctive relief separately from the contempt proceedings, because there is relevant
18
evidence unrelated to the contempt proceedings.
19
D. The Court Should Order Attorneys Fees and Costs
20
The Court should order attorneys fees and costs to Plaintiffs counsel to
21
compensate for the expense of litigating the compliance issues and other monitoring
22
work since the Courts October 2012 Supplemental Injunction. Such fees are justified,
23
among other reasons, as a penalty for Defendants failure to produce records in
24
response to discovery requests pre-trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); Falstaff Brewing Corp.,
25
702 F.2d at 784. An award of attorneys fees and costs is also justified as
26
compensation for the time and costs of Plaintiffs counsel in responding to Defendants
27
noncompliance with the Courts orders, separate from any award of compensatory
28
damages. Perry v. ODonnell, 759 F.2d 702, 704-06 (9th Cir. 1985) (affirming award
24
of attorneys fees and costs in civil contempt proceeding as a remedial measure);
Commodity Futures Trading Commn v. Premex, Inc., 655 F.2d 779, 785-86 (7th Cir.
1981); Natl Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 825, Intl Union of Operating Engineers,
430 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir. 1970). Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that the
failure to comply with document discovery is appropriate for imposition through civil
proceedings and also can be remedied through means other than contempt, including
assessing costs, to penalize a partys failure to comply with the rules of conduct
governing the litigation process. Intl Union, 512 U.S. at 833. Plaintiffs will submit a
separate, detailed application for attorneys fees and costs.
10
11
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should issue an order to show cause why
12
Defendants and the individuals named herein should not be held in civil contempt,
13
order limited written discovery, and schedule an evidentiary hearing.
14
Respectfully submitted this 8th day of January, 2015.
15
By: /s/ Cecillia D. Wang
16
17
18
Daniel Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
ACLU Foundation
19
20
21
22
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Hyun S. Byun (Pro Hac Vice)
Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP
Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
23
24
25
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
26
27
On the brief:
Joshua Bendor
28
25
1
2
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 8, 2014, I electronically transmitted the attached

document to the Clerks office using the CM/ECF System for filing and caused the
4
5
attached document to be e-mailed to:
6
7
8
9
Thomas P. Liddy
liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov
Michele M. Iafrate
miafrate@iafratelaw.com
10
11
A. Melvin McDonald
mmcdonald@jshfirm.com
12
13
14
Attorneys for Defendant Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the

Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/s/ Cecillia D. Wang
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843-1 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 78
Exhibit A
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; and )
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his
)
official capacity as Sheriff
)
of Maricopa County, Arizona,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
THE DEPOSITION OF SGT. CESAR BROCKMAN

VOLUME
Phoenix, Arizona
February 5, 2014
9:21 a.m.
PREPARED BY:
DOREEN C. BORGMANN, RMR, CRR
Certified Reporter
Certificate No. 50644
PREPARED FOR:
ASCII
(Copy)

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
United States of America v. Maricopa County
2/5/2014
Page 10
1
supervisor over patrol officers?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what shift are you on?
A.
I work third shift, night shift.
Q.
Okay.
6
7
8
Patrol deputies, yes.
Could you just take me through your
time at MCSO from the beginning up until that point.

A.
You want my entire time with MCSO or just
my time as a deputy?
Q.
I guess your entire time.
10
A.
Well, I started as a detention officer back
11
in 2001.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
Attended the detention academy.
I was a
14
detention officer for about eight weeks, where I worked
15
at Durango Jail.
16
in November of 2001.
17
from there, I was assigned to the Criminal Court
18
Services, where I was there for about a year.
19
Then I went on to the deputy academy

Graduated March 28 of 2002.
And
From there I went on to District 2 Patrol
20
for about three years.
21
El Mirage.
22
I was assigned to -- from there I was assigned to the
23
Human Smuggling Unit, where I was -- I was part of the
24
Human Smuggling Unit group from August, 2007, to January
25
of 2008.
From District 2, I went over to
Patrolled there for about a year.
And then
From January of 2008 to August of 2013, I was

WWW.ARIZONACOURTREPORTERS.COM
www.arizonacourtreporters.com
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 11
1
the acting supervisor for the Criminal Employment Squad.
Then from August, 2013, to October -- right
around October 1, beginning of October, I was back to
one of the HSU squads, because they brought in a true
sergeant.
sergeant, and who replaced me, and I was assigned back
to one of the HSU squads.
Well, I can't say -- yeah, I guess a true
And on October -- beginning of October -- I

believe it was around October 1, I got assigned to our
10
training division as a recruit training officer, where I
11
was there from October -- beginning of October to
12
January 17, when I got promoted.
13
14
15
Q.
From August, 2013, to October, 2013, which
HSU squad were you in?

A.
I was -- I was under Sergeant Glen Powe.
16
They really don't -- it was down to two -- two squads,
17
the Criminal Employment Squad and then the HSU squad.
18
Q.
You were on the HSU side?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
So not doing Criminal Employment Squad work
21
at that point?
22
A.
No.
23
Q.
Got it.
Unless they needed our help.

For the entirety of your time in
24
the Criminal Employment Squad, you were an acting
25
supervisor?
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 52
1
2
Q.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
the Melendrez litigation?
A.
I've heard about it.
of the depositions.
knowledge per se.
6
7
Q.
Okay.
I wasn't part of any
I've got -- I've got basic
Have you looked at court orders or
documents from that case?
8
9
Are you familiar with
A.
I have skimmed over stuff that came over
our e-mail at work.
10
Q.
Okay.
And that's about it.

What I've just handed you, Exhibit
11
139, is a court order from that case, from the Melendrez
12
case.
13
idea whether you've seen this before?
14
15
16
It's dated December 23, 2011.
A.
Do you have any
No, I couldn't tell you what -- I don't
recall whether I saw it.

Q.
Okay.
I want you to take a look at the
17
second page of this document.
18
paragraph that's numbered Number 5.
And I'm going to read the

Do you see that?
19
A.
Okay.
20
Q.
"MCSO and all of its officers are hereby
21
enjoined from detaining any person based only on
22
knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the
23
person is unlawfully present within the United States,
24
because as a matter of law such knowledge does not
25
amount to a reasonable belief that the person either

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 53
1
violated or conspired to violate the Arizona human
smuggling statute, or any other state or federal
criminal law."
Did I read that accurately?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Having read this, were you made aware of
this order at the time it was issued?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What were you told about it?
A.
I don't recall exactly what we were told.
I'm sure -- I'm sure we were.
10
But we were -- I'm sure we were briefed on anything that
11
had to do with -- that would affect the unit and the
12
operations of the unit, we were informed of.
13
14
Q.
Do you know how you would have been
informed about something like this?
15
A.
It was either by a supervisor for me to
16
pass on to our troops, to my squad.
Maybe by an
17
attorney.
It was one of those
18
ways.
19
That's -- or via e-mail.
I don't recall the specific one.

Q.
Okay.
Do you remember if you were told to
20
change anything about how the Criminal Employment Squad
21
did its work as a result of this order?
22
A.
No.
I already told you how we changed.
23
The changes went -- evolved as -- as -- you know, as
24
time went on.
25
Q.
Okay. Were you told that this had any

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 54
1
effect on the calls that the Criminal Employment Squad
was making to LEAR?
A.
I don't recall.
I just remember there was
a time where we were not -- we were specifically -- our
agency was specifically the ones that LEAR was not to
take anybody from.
7
8
9
Q.
Okay.
Was that something you learned from
LEAR or from your supervisors?

A.
No.
This came down from -- yes, it came
10
down from supervisor, I believe.
11
chain of command.
Came down from the
12
Q.
Do you think that was in 2011?
13
A.
I don't recall, sir.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
As you read this, do you think it
should have had any effect on the LEAR procedures --
16
MR. MASTERSON:
17
Q.
18
Form, foundation.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
-- that the Criminal
Employment Squad was following?
19
MR. MASTERSON:
20
THE WITNESS:
Form, foundation.
Yes.
Because it is your -- only a
21
knowledge or reasonable belief.
22
doesn't state what reasonable belief is.
23
Q.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
But it doesn't -- it
So do you think that it
24
would not have had an effect on the LEAR procedures you
25
followed?
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 225
1
presented fictitious Arizona identification card.
then his true identity was revealed with a Mexico
driver's license.
4
5
Q.
And
Do you remember where the records were
located in this business?
A.
Yes.
Q.
In the restroom?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So the search team was in the restroom
10
In the restroom.
trying to find employee files?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Was that area secured in the way that we've
13
talked about?
14
15
A.
Because I was in the area there.
totally recall.
16
17
Yes.
Q.
Were any employees interfering with the
search for files in the restroom?
18
A.
No.
Well -- no.
It was by mistake that
19
somebody actually walked into the restroom.
20
know they were in there.
They didn't
21
Q.
But not to disrupt the search, I imagine.
22
A.
No.
23
Q.
Okay.
I think I'd like to move on and hand
24
you an exhibit that's been previously marked as Exhibit
25
100.
Do you recognize that document?

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 226
1
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what is that?
A.
A shift summary.
Q.
What operation is the shift summary for?
A.
United Construction Group.
Q.
What's the date of that operation?
A.
September 27, 2012.
Q.
Did you create this document?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Is that your name on the third page?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Okay.
At the bottom of the second
13
paragraph on the first page, it indicates that there
14
were 16 suspects for identity theft or forgery; is that
15
right?
16
A.
Excuse me.
17
Q.
Oh, I'm sorry.
18
Where was that?

I'm on the first page at
the end of the second paragraph.
19
A.
Oh, yes.
20
Q.
Is that what that says?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And that information is accurate as far as
23
you know today?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And then looking down at the next

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 227
1
paragraph, it indicates that the warrant was executed at
5:20 a.m.; is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that the detectives contacted 25
employees?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then further down in the paragraph, it
indicates that there were five suspects taken into
custody?
10
11
A.
Five of the listed suspects were taken into
custody.
12
Q.
Okay.
Okay.
The next paragraph indicates
13
at that there were two additional subjects who were
14
among the employees and came looking for work; is that
15
right?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And is that accurate as far as you
18
remember?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And looking on the next page, it indicates
21
that detectives contacted ICE/ERO LEAR to turn them
22
over.
23
subsequently transported to Border Patrol.
24
that indicates?
25
ICE refused to take them, and they were
A.
Is that what
Yes.
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 228
1
Q.
Is that accurate as far as you remember?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you take me through the execution of
this warrant from the time that you arrived on the
scene.
is this an operation for which you prepared an operation
plan?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Before you do that, once again,
A.
Yes.
Q.
And as we've gone through before, it would
10
be kept in the places that you think the others would
11
be?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Okay.
I'm sorry about that.
But could you
14
now take me through the execution of the search warrant
15
when you arrived on the scene.
16
A.
We -- we had -- everybody took position in
17
their assigned -- assigned duties, whether it was
18
perimeter or going into the yard to gather the
19
employees.
20
trying to locate the highest ranking, I guess, employee
21
there.
22
that we arrived.
23
And I -- I accompanied Detective Almanza in
Because the owners weren't on site at the time
Served the warrant.
And at that time once
24
everybody was gathered up in the area there within the
25
yard, the search -- search team came. No, I believe we

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 229
1
had to wait for the owner to unlock the office where the
files were.
the owner to get there.
So, yeah, the search team had to wait for
But in the meantime, employees were being
identified.
taken into custody, and then there was others that
freely admitted to working there without proper
documentation.
initially taken into custody for identity theft and
All the suspects that were identified were
And those two were detained and
10
forgery.
11
The owner gave them to us.
Because we were able to obtain their files.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
And then there was two subjects that -- it
14
says here they were -- they were looking -- they claimed
15
they were looking for work.
16
were identified, and then they -- they admitted they
17
were there illegally from Mexico.
18
there and called ICE ERO.
19
We identified them, or they
So we detained them
They refused them.
And then one of the detectives -- yeah, I
20
believe it was one of the detectives -- was it one of
21
the detectives or a supervisor.
22
the detectives called up the Border Patrol station up --
23
I think it was the one near Gila Bend.
24
here.
25
And they took them. They took the two. We had a couple
Yeah.
I think it was one of
I think it says
It's the check point south of Gila Bend.
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 230
1
posse units transport them out to them.
Everyone else was processed, was taken over
to our Enforcement Support building, where they were
processed or interviewed and booked into jail.
5
6
Q.
So you mentioned that the file search
couldn't start right away because the room was locked.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
And it was locked.
They were in the owner's office.
They couldn't -- the
10
supervisor that was there didn't have a key in order
11
to -- he was the yard supervisor, I believe it says
12
here.
13
believe he was -- he called himself, like, the yard
14
supervisor, something like that.
15
16
17
Let's see here.
Q.
Yeah.
He was a foreman.
But I
But you went ahead and detained the
employees present to be identified?

A.
Yes.
Everybody that was present there.
18
Like I said, it was about 25 people, and we had 16
19
suspects.
20
Q.
So -And if the owner's office was locked, there
21
wasn't really any chance that the employees present were
22
going to interfere with the file search?
23
A.
24
MR. MASTERSON:
25
Q.
Oh, no.
Form, foundation.
BY MR. KILLEBREW: I'm going to show you a

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 231
1
document that we will mark as Exhibit 165.
2
3
(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 165 was

marked.)
Q.
document?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does this relate to the United Construction
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Do you recognize this
It's a Supplemental Report.
operation?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
That is your signature on the bottom
11
right-hand --
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
-- corner?
14
What does your signature on
this indicate?
15
A.
It means I read it and approved it.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
And you would have read it and
approved it near the time it was written?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And your job in approving and signing
20
After it was written.
reports is to insure that they're accurate?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
On the second page of that report,
23
if you could read the first two paragraphs just to
24
yourself and tell me when you're done.
25
A.
(The witness complied.)

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 232
1
Okay.
2
3
Q.
we'll mark as Exhibit Number 166.
4
5
I'm now going to hand you a document that
(Whereupon, Deposition Exhibit 166 was

marked.)
Q.
document?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what is that?
10
A.
It's a Supplemental Report.
11
Q.
Is this also for the United Construction
12
Group operation?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Is that your signature on the bottom of the
15
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Do you recognize that
first page?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
When you reviewed these reports in your
18
roll as the acting sergeant over the Criminal Employment
19
Squad?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
This is a routine part of your -- as part
22
of your supervision of that squad, was to review
23
reports?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
If you could look at the last page of

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 233
1
Exhibit 166.
begins, "During the service of the search warrant...."
Do you see where I'm at?
And the longest paragraph on that page
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you read that paragraph to yourself.
A.
7
8
9
10
Okay.
Q.
Having read this, these two reports, do you
recall what happened in this traffic stop?

A.
Yeah.
Now that I remember, a traffic
11
stop was made.
12
was explaining, you know, the service of the warrant.
13
Yeah, I remember the traffic stop now.
I didn't -- it didn't come to me as I
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Of the traffic stop?
16
Q.
Uh-huh.
17
A.
Well, it was -- it was a company vehicle
What were the circumstances here?
18
leaving, once again.
19
in to serve the warrant -- you know, we have a staged
20
location.
21
company vehicle leave, and these detectives took the
22
initiative to pull it over in case there were suspects
23
in the vehicle.
24
25
Q.
As we -- as the convoy was going
From there, we deploy.
Okay.
And they saw a
It was stopped because it was a
company vehicle leaving at the time of the warrant

602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 234
1
search?
A.
Yeah.
Q.
And that was the reason for the stop?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then what happened with these
yard.
individuals in the car?
8
9
10
It was seen coming right out of the
A.
Well, it says here those three individuals,
one being a company employee, and it turned out that the

other two were not employees of the company.
11
Q.
At the point that officers recognized that
12
they were not employees of the company, was there any
13
chance that they could be -- become suspects of identity
14
theft as part of this operation?
15
MR. MASTERSON:
16
THE WITNESS:
Form, foundation.
Well, if they weren't employees the
17
company, no, not referenced directly to this case.
18
However, they did admit they were in the country
19
illegally.
20
ICE ERO or DRO.
21
22
Q.
We did what we normally, which was to call
And it appears in this case that ICE was
called from the scene?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And then Border Patrol was called after
25
that?
602.264.2230

Sgt. Cesar Brockman
2/5/2014
Page 235
1
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then they were transported to Border
Patrol by a member of the posse?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
Was that a typical exercise?
I'm
sorry.
other instances that individuals were transported to
Border Patrol?
9
10
11
Let me rephrase that.
A.
Did it ever happen in
As long as I recall, this was the only one
where we turn somebody to Border Patrol.

Q.
Okay.
I'd like to show you a document that
12
has been previously marked as Exhibit 104.
13
go ahead and hand out Exhibit -- what's been previously
14
marked Exhibit 103 and Exhibit 105.
15
Exhibit 104?
You can also
Do you recognize
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And what is that?
18
A.
An ops plan.
19
Q.
What operation does it relate to?
20
A.
Sportex.
21
Q.
What was the date of this operation?
22
A.
February 8, 2013.
23
Q.
So this operation is just called Operation
24
25
Sportex; is that right?

A.
Yes.
602.264.2230
Exhibit B

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
THE DEPOSITION OF SHERIFF JOSEPH M. ARPAIO

Phoenix, Arizona
April 29, 2014
10:37 a.m.
PREPARED BY:
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
ASCII
(Copy)

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
4/29/2014
Page 59
1
Q.
And I forgot to ask you.
The portion of
the transcript that's Exhibit 334, did it accurately
transcribe that segment of the audio we listened to?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And during that segment, you mentioned the
term "collaterals."
about earlier; right?
8
9
A.
And that's the word that we talked
I just came up with that.
That was my own
word in the past.
10
Q.
And it's a shorthand to describe somebody
11
who's in the country illegally but for whom there's no
12
probable cause to claim they engaged in a State criminal
13
violation?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And as to those people I think I described
16
earlier, MCSO's practice was to detain the person until
17
MCSO could hand them over to ICE; is that right?
18
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
THE WITNESS:
20
Q.
21
Form.
Correct.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Was there a particular name
that your office had for that practice?
22
A.
Not that I know of.
23
Q.
Have you heard the term "LEAR policy"
24
25
before?
A.
I believe that was a federal term, yes.

GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES - (602) 264-2230
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 60
1
2
Q.
the practice we just talked about?
3
4
5
6
Did your office use that term to describe
A.
You're just saying would they use that
Q.
To refer to the practice of detaining
word?
collaterals until you could give them over to ICE.
A.
I believe they did.
Q.
Would you happen to know what "LEAR" stands
for, L-E-A-R?
10
A.
I -- I don't.
11
Q.
Did this policy or this practice apply to
12
traffic enforcement for MCSO?
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
16
Form.
Violations of -- if it was a
violation of the law, I would presume.

Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Okay.
I guess what I'm
17
trying to figure out is this practice of detaining
18
collaterals until they could be given to ICE, did it
19
only apply during suppression operations, or was it just
20
general practice whenever a deputy encountered somebody
21
who was a collateral?
22
MR. POPOLIZIO:
23
MR. WALKER:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
Form, foundation.
Join.
I don't have any information that
the regular deputies were using that versus our special

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 61
1
2
3
deputies that concentrated on this type of activity.

Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
You just don't know; is
that right?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you know whether this practice was
followed during identity theft operations?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
Join.
THE WITNESS:
No.
Form, foundation.
10
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
11
A.
No.
No, you don't know?
I -- I just want to clarify something.
12
I'm not trying to avoid your question, but I do have
13
3,500 employees.
14
me a lot of these questions, I'm not trying to avoid,
15
but I don't get deeply involved.
I don't micromanage.
So when you ask
16
Q.
I totally understand.
17
A.
So that's why I --
18
Q.
And if you don't know, you don't know.
19
A.
Right.
20
Q.
I wouldn't expect you to have intimate
21
knowledge of every single operation.
22
This practice of detaining collaterals
23
until they could be given to ICE, when did it stop?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
MR. WALKER: Join.

Form, foundation.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 62
1
THE WITNESS:
Q.
going on?
A.
It's not going on now.
Q.
Do you remember talking action to make sure
I don't know.
BY MR. CASPAR:
that it stopped going on?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
THE WITNESS:
10
11
Do you know if it's still
Form.
Join.
Once again, my staff understands
that we don't do that.

Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
And do you recall a
12
particular meeting or a particular memo that you issued
13
to make sure your staff understood that?
14
A.
15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
MR. CASPAR:
17
THE WITNESS:
18
19
No.
Form.
Okay.
Let's mark this Exhibit 3 --
Can -- could you repeat that
question again?
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Do you recall a particular
20
meeting or a particular memo or some action that you
21
took to make sure your staff understood that it should
22
no longer detain collaterals for ICE?
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
Form.
Do you have the time frame?
What
are we talking about?

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 63
1
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Well, I'm going to show you
what we're going to mark now as Exhibit 336, a "Message
From The Sheriff."
recollection.
This might refresh your
So I'm handing a piece of paper to the
court reporter to mark as Exhibit 336.
know what?
already been marked.
So this is Exhibit 18 in a
previous deposition.
And we're going sequentially, so
Sorry.
I'm taking it back.
10
it's ultimately all the same.
11
the Sheriff.
12
13
Okay.
Actually, you
This has
I'm handing Exhibit 18 to
If you could take a moment to look
it over and then let me know if you recognize it.
14
A.
15
Q.
Do you recognize Exhibit 18?
16
A.
I recognize it now.
17
Q.
Seeing it, does it refresh your
18
recollection as to what it is?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Can you tell me what it is?
21
A.
I believe this may have been pursuant to a
22
Judge's Order that came out around that time.
23
people sent this out to remind our officers, I presume,
24
about that Court decision.
25
Q.
So my
And just so it's clear in the record, the

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 64
1
title is the Briefing Board, Number 13-40.
May 28, 2013.
Sheriff."
A.
Yes.
Q.
And I'll just go ahead and read it so it's
It's dated
And the heading says, "Message From The
in the record.
effective immediately, no MCSO personnel shall detain
any person for turnover to ICE unless probable cause to
arrest or detain exists under Arizona Criminal Law.
10
It says, "By order of Sheriff Arpaio,
"Additionally, to reiterate, MCSO personnel
11
shall never use race as a factor for taking law
12
enforcement actions or any other purpose."
13
Did I read that all right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
The first paragraph, is it fair to say that
16
that was intended to put a stop to the practice of
17
detaining collaterals and then turning them over to ICE?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Do you know if, up until May 28, 2013, that
20
practice was still going on?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
You just don't know?
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
You can't say one way or the other?
25
A.
That's correct.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 65
1
2
Q.
Do you have an independent memory today of
realizing that you needed to issue this Briefing Board?
MR. WALKER:
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE WITNESS:
Q.
7
8
9
10
11
Form.
Form.
Yes.
BY MR. CASPAR:
And what is that
realization?
A.
It was pursuant to a Judge's ruling, trying
to comply with the Judge.

Q.
Because it was in May, 2013, that the
Melendres order came out; is that right?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
So that was the Order that came out in the
14
Melendres case in May of 2013.
15
previous order in that case of something called a
16
preliminary injunction that came out in December, 2011,
17
about detaining people without probable cause that they
18
had committed a crime?
Are you aware of a
19
A.
I vaguely recall that.
20
Q.
What is your recollection of that now as
21
22
you sit here today?

A.
I'm not sure.
There's been so many orders
23
by the Judge, I think four or five that have come out
24
over this situation.
25
Q.
I'm going to show you a copy of the Order,

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 66
1
see if it refreshes your recollection.
2
3
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Are we talking about the May
Order?
MR. CASPAR:
This is going to be the December,
2011, Order in the Melendres case.
Exhibit 336.
7
8
And we'll mark it
(Whereupon, the Reporter marked Deposition

Exhibit 336.)
Q.
10
Exhibit 336.
11
long Order.
12
but --
BY MR. CASPAR:
Okay.
So I've handed you
If you could take a moment.
It's a very
I wouldn't ask you to read the whole thing,
13
A.
What page do you want me to --
14
Q.
I guess I'll say for the record this is the
15
December 23, 2011, order in the Melendres vs. Arpaio
16
case.
17
So the very last page.
And the page I want to ask you about is page 40.
18
MR. WALKER:
Four zero?
19
MR. CASPAR:
Four zero.
20
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
And at the top of the page
21
it says, "It is therefore ordered:"
22
numbered paragraphs.
23
And it's got five
And I'm interested in Number 5.
For the record, Number 5 says, "MCSO and
24
all of its officers are hereby enjoined from detaining
25
any person based only on knowledge or reasonable belief,

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 67
1
without more, that the person is unlawfully present
within the United States, because as a matter of law
such knowledge does not amount to a reasonable belief
that the person either violated or conspired to violate
the Arizona human smuggling statute, or any other state
or federal criminal law."
7
8
Do you recall being aware of this Order

when it came out?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And did you read this Order yourself?
11
Or
were you briefed about it later?
12
A.
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
I believe -Form, foundation --- I'd been deal --- to the extent that it will
16
incorporate attorney-client communications.
17
rephrase the question.
So please
18
Q.
19
question.
20
A.
I believe I discussed it with my attorneys.
21
Q.
As to paragraph 5 on page 40, did you
BY MR. CASPAR:
Let me rephrase the
Did you read this Order yourself?
22
direct that anything be done to make sure your office
23
was going to comply with that part?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE WITNESS: I don't recall.

Form.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 68
1
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Do you know if, after
December, 2011, after this Order was issued, were you
aware of whether MCSO officers were still detaining
people over collaterals?
A.
No.
Q.
After this Order issued, were you aware
that MCSO officers were continuing to detain the kind of
people that paragraph 5 in the Order prohibited MCSO
from detaining?
10
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
MR. WALKER:
12
THE WITNESS:
Form.
Join.
You know, once again, I can't
13
remember whether it was my staff working on this.
14
didn't get, once again, involved in these operations.
15
And, also, I'm sure that my office was indeed talking to
16
our attorneys because of this lawsuit.
17
recall exactly at that time period the question you're
18
asking.
19
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Okay.
So I don't
Let me see if I can
20
come up with a better way of asking these questions now.
21
So paragraph 5, would you agree it applies to the
22
practice of detaining what we're calling collaterals for
23
purpose of delivering to ICE; is that right?
24
A.
25
MR. POPOLIZIO: Form.

Yes.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 69
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
And do you know if that
practice continued after this Order?

A.
I don't have that knowledge.
May have, but
I can't remember.
Q.
All right.
I want to show you a press
release.
Can you mark this Exhibit 337.
(Whereupon, the Reporter marked Deposition
9
10
11
12
Exhibit 337.)
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Could you take a moment to
look it over and let me know if you can recognize it.

A.
13

Yes.
14
Q.
Do you know what this is, Exhibit 337?
15
A.
This is a press release put out by my
16
17
18
Public Information Officer.

Q.
And the date of that release is March 14,
2013; is that right?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
What does it relate to?
21
A.
Related to an arrest of four suspects for
22
identification theft and forgery.
23
seven were turned over to ICE.
24
25
Q.
And it mentioned
In the summary it says, "[72nd] Operation
Targeting False Identifications Used to Gain

602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 70
1
Employment."
Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
If you look at Exhibit 332, which is the
list of identity theft operations, do you see America's
Taco Shop reflected as Exhibit 72 -- or I apologize.
6
7
THE WITNESS:
MR. POPOLIZIO:
I believe the court reporter has
it.
10
11
Do you have
mine?
8
9
Did you take my stuff?
(Whereupon, a discussion off the record was

had.)
12
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
So let's back up here.
So
13
I just want to look at Exhibit 332 and Exhibit 337.
14
Exhibit 337 is a press release.
15
"[72nd] Operation Targeting False Identifications Used
16
to Gain Employment."
17
Do you see that?
A.
That's right.
19
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
20
A.
Taco Shop.
21
Q.
That's right.
18
And the summary says,
That's Number 72?
Right.
Okay.
That's right.
And I guess what I'm asking
22
you is does that press release, Exhibit 337, correspond
23
to Number 72 on the list of Exhibit 332?
24
MR. WALKER:
25
MR. POPOLIZIO: Join.

Form.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 71
1
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
Let me sort of complicate
the question.
Exhibit 337.
about that.
see in the narrative part, the first sentence, it says,
"The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is announcing
today that it has conducted a simultaneous workplace ID
Theft Operation at three locations of the restaurant
chain America's Taco Shop."
So I guess I just want to focus on

Never mind what Exhibit 332 says.
Sorry
But if you just look at Exhibit 337, you'll
Do you see that?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And now if you'll look at Exhibit 332,
12
Number 72 on the list says, "America's Taco Shop";
13
right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And is there a date for that operation?
16
A.
It's the March 14.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
MR. WALKER:
The date on Exhibit 332?
19
MR. CASPAR:
That's right.
20
Q.
All right.
BY MR. CASPAR:
But setting that aside for
21
now, I just -- I wanted to ask you.
22
the arrests.
23
how many people were arrested during this operation?
24
25
A.
You mentioned about
Can you tell me, according to Exhibit 337,
I believe it was 11.
You're talking about
the 332?
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 72
1
Q.
Yes.
A.
So 11.
Q.
Okay.
Let's --
So 332 says 11.
If we set aside 332
and just look at Exhibit 337, how many people does 337
say were arrested?
A.
Four.
Q.
Four.
A.
ID theft.
Q.
For ID theft.
10
Four people were arrested
for ID theft; is that right?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And then Exhibit 337 says, "Total arrest
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
So what's your understanding as to what the
13
16
17
11."
remaining seven people were arrested for?

A.
Well, according to the press release, which
18
I don't recall, it probably means that four were State
19
charges, and the other were federal in the sense turn
20
over to ICE.
21
Q.
So that the other seven were collaterals
22
who were turned over to the ICE; is that right?
23
would be your understanding?
That
24
A.
25
MR. WALKER: Form, foundation.

Yes.
602.264.2230

4/29/2014
Page 73
1
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
Join.
BY MR. CASPAR:
And to be fair, you don't
have any independent recollection of what happened
during this operation, do you?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you have any independent recollection of
being informed at this time that people were still being
arrested for purely immigration violations and not for
criminal violations?
10
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE WITNESS:
12
Q.
BY MR. CASPAR:
13
A.
Well, I can see it by this press release
14
15
16
Form.
You're talking about March of 2013?
About a year ago.
and by this statistical report.

Q.
But you don't have any independent
recollection?
17
A.
18
MR. CASPAR:
I -- I can't remember all the arrests.

Sheriff, we've been going a little
19
bit over an hour.
20
would you like to keep going?
Would you like to take a break, or
21
THE WITNESS:
22
MR. MASTERSON:
Let's take a break.
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Yeah.
24
MR. CASPAR:
25
I don't mind.
We can take a break.
(Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:05

602.264.2230
Exhibit C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; and
Defendants.
)
)
)
)No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DEPOSITION OF BRIAN L. SANDS
Los Angeles, California

March 25, 2014
9:09 a.m.
REPORTED BY:
PAMELA A. GRIFFIN, RPR, CRR
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
CONDENSED/ASCII
(Certified Copy)

Brian L. Sands
3/25/2014
Page 183
1
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
THE WITNESS:
Foundation.
Join.
We discussed the Morris case.
And I -- that's the one I recall, but I don't recall any
others.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Q.
Okay.
I'm going to hand you a document that's
been previously marked as Exhibit 139.
from an order that was entered in the Melendres
This is an excerpt
10
litigation.
11
page of that order, and the second page of the exhibit is
12
the last page of that order.
13
The first page of this exhibit is the first
And I would like you to look at paragraph 5
14
on the second page, the Item No. 5.
15
to yourself.
16
17
And please read that
Do you see that that's dated December 23rd,

2011?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
At that time you were Executive Chief; right?
20
A.
Right.
21
Q.
Did you see this order when it was issued?
22
A.
I believe so, yes.
23
Q.
Did you believe that this had any impact on the
24
25
work of the Criminal Employment Squad?

A.
Yes.
602.264.2230

Brian L. Sands
3/25/2014
Page 184
1
Q.
What impact did it have on them?
A.
Well, the impact wasn't that they were doing
anything wrong in the first place, as I remember.
were just briefed on the Judge's order on how to conduct
this, as well as the human smuggling people.
when you're detaining somebody for identity theft, it's
somewhat -- not as similar to human smuggling on a traffic
stop.
Q.
They
I think that
What do you understand this order to prohibit?
10
MR. WALKER:
11
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
THE WITNESS:
Form.
Form.
Foundation.
Detaining somebody because you
13
have a reason to believe they're in the country illegally.
14
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
15
Q.
So if detectives from the Criminal Employment
16
Squad were detaining people for that reason, but for whom
17
they did not think the person had violated state criminal
18
law, would that be consistent with this court order?
19
MR. WALKER:
20
MR. POPOLIZIO:
21
THE WITNESS:
22
23
Form.
Form.
I believe so, yeah.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Q.
So during the execution of the search warrant, a
24
detective from the Criminal Employment Squad came across
25
someone who had not violated the state criminal law, but
602.264.2230

Brian L. Sands
3/25/2014
Page 185
1
they had reason to believe that the person was unlawfully
present in the United States, the detective could detain
that person?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
THE WITNESS:
another matter.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
9
10
Q.
Okay.
Form.
Form.
Not unless he was suspect on
So if that happened, that doesn't comply
with this order?
11
A.
I believe you're right.
12
Q.
Did you provide information to your subordinates
13
14
15
16
about this court order?

A.
Our attorney, as I remember, handled all of that
with our staff.

Q.
Okay.
Do you know if any policies or directives
17
were given to the detectives in the Criminal Employment
18
Squad about this order?
19
MR. POPOLIZIO:
20
THE WITNESS:
21
22
Form.
I believe so.
BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Q.
If detectives or the sergeant over the Criminal
23
Employment Squad was unaware of this order, would that be
24
a problem?
25
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Form.
602.264.2230
Exhibit D

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
THE DEPOSITION OF CHIEF DEPUTY GERARD SHERIDAN

Phoenix, Arizona
March 27, 2014
9:13 a.m.
PREPARED BY:
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
ASCII
(Copy)

Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
3/27/2014
Page 122
1
were never informed?
those officers were informed about the preliminary
injunction in Melendres?
Actually, do you know whether
MR. MASTERSON:
MR. WALKER:
THE WITNESS:
7
8
9
Form, foundation.
Form, foundation.
No.
with that.
Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
communicated to MCSO?
11
MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE WITNESS:
13
Q.
Form, foundation.
No.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
A.
16
MR. MASTERSON:
17
THE WITNESS:
19
Who should have
communicated those instructions?
15
18
Do you know why the
instructions from the preliminary injunction were never
10
14
I don't recall what we did
It would have been -Form.

It would have been my
responsibility as the Chief Deputy.

Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
And how would you have
20
learned of those instructions in the preliminary
21
injunction?
22
MR. MASTERSON:
23
MR. WALKER:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
Q.
Form.
Join.
Through my counsel.
BY MS. CHEEMA: When you learned about the

602.264.2230

3/27/2014
Page 123
1
preliminary injunction, did you understand that it
instructed your office to stop detaining individuals
based on immigration violations?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE WITNESS:
Form, foundation.
I'm having a hard time answering
your questions because I don't -- I don't remember the
details of the preliminary injunction.
8
9
MS. CHEEMA:
minutes?
Could we take a break for five
And I can bring that.
10
MR. WALKER:
Okay.
11
MS. CHEEMA:
So go off the record.
12
13
(Whereupon, a recess was taken from 1:15

p.m. to 1:28 p.m.)
14
Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
We just handed you, sir,
15
what's been previously labeled Government's Exhibit 139.
16
And the date on the top is December 23, 2011.
17
an excerpt of a 40-page opinion.
18
and last pages here.
19
discusses what was called the preliminary injunction.
20
Did you need any more time to read that?
This is
We've got the first
And the last paragraph on page 2
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Do you remember around this time period in
23
December of 2011 receiving any information about this
24
Order?
25
A.
You know, I don't. And I was thinking

602.264.2230

3/27/2014
Page 124
1
while you were gone why I wouldn't recall something
significant like this.
late in the process -- early in the process -- I don't
know how I would couch it -- with Melendres and Chief
Sands' involvement in the whole issue and all the other
things that I was dealing with at the time with the
issues that we talked about earlier, cross-funding and
the budgets and getting things together and all the
inspections that were going on and the audits and
And because of my involvement
10
things, I pretty much left the Melendres case to Chief
11
Sands to deal with.
12
until you had mentioned it.
13
Q.
Okay.
So I -- I didn't even recall this
So was that a formal delegation of
14
duty?
15
responsible for communicating the orders from Melendres
16
to his deputies?
Did Chief Sands understand that he was
17
MR. MASTERSON:
18
MR. WALKER:
19
THE WITNESS:
Form, foundation.
Join.
I would say it would have been an
20
informal delegation.
21
understanding of that would have been.
22
Q.
And I don't know what his
BY MS. CHEEMA:
Okay.
By "informal
23
delegation," did you ask him to take responsibility for
24
any repercussions of the case?
25
MR. MASTERSON: Form.

602.264.2230

3/27/2014
Page 125
1
THE WITNESS:
No.
I don't think we ever talked
about that.
the jails and he was dealing with this issue since the
inception of 287(g) and this was a result of the Patrol
side, the Enforcement side, and I was dealing with all
the other issues, I didn't really talk to him that much
about this until later in the process.
8
9
10
Q.
Because, again, the fact that I came from
BY MS. CHEEMA:
wanted to communicate this order to your office, who

would he have communicated with?
11
MR. MASTERSON:
12
THE WITNESS:
13
Q.
14
If the County Attorney had
Foundation.
I would think Chief Sands.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
Did the County Attorney
ever communicate with you about this case?
15
MR. WALKER:
16
MR. MASTERSON:
17
THE WITNESS:
Form.
Join.
He -- the County Attorney and the
18
outside attorney, that same case, have on many
19
occasions.
20
talking about.
21
But I don't know what time period you're
MR. MASTERSON:
Just to clarify -- and I don't
22
know the answer to the question.
23
Attorney."
24
County Attorney or possibly a Deputy County Attorney.
25
But you said "County
And I don't know if you're referring to the
MS. CHEEMA: Thank you. I meant anyone from the

602.264.2230
Exhibit E

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
) NO. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Maricopa County, Arizona; and
)
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official )
capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa
)
County, Arizona,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________)
DEPOSITION OF DETECTIVE GABRIEL ALMANZA

Phoenix, Arizona
December 11, 2013
9:14 a.m.
REPORTED BY:
PHYLLIS M. RISSKY, RPR
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
(Original)
Griffin & Associates 2398 E. Camelback Rd.
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 218
1
Is that an accurate statement?
A.
Yes.
Q.
It then says, "Detectives contacted about 25 male
subjects believed to be employees, including a foreman."
Is that an accurate statement?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Further down on the page it says, "There were two
other subjects" -- this is near the bottom of the page --
"among the employees, and they were at the property
10
looking for work as the warrant was executed.
11
subjects identified as," and then their names are
12
redacted.
13
The two
And it says they "freely admitted to detectives
14
that they were illegally in the country from Mexico."
15
Based on admissions, "detectives contacted Phoenix ICE/ERO
16
LEAR to turn them over.
17
subjects because they were not part of human smuggling."
18
The two subjects "were subsequently transported and turned
19
over to Border Patrol agents at the checkpoint south of
20
Gila Bend."
ICE/ERO LEAR refused to take the
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Is that accurate?
23
A.
Again, Detective Brockman generated this.
24
25
But
reading this, I would say yes.

Q.
I'd like to hand you a document that we'll mark
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 219
1
as Exhibit No. 101.
2
3
4
5
(Exhibit No. 101 was marked for identification.)

BY MR. KILLEBREW:
Q.
If you can review that document and identify it
when you're ready.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what is that document?
A.
It looks like a supplement from Detective
Martinez.
10
Q.
On the second page of that document, about five
11
lines down in the text it says, "All other subjects were
12
identified by Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
13
Detectives."
14
Is that what that says?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Were you present when subjects were identified?
17
A.
No.
I was inside the office.
They had called
18
the owner because he -- at that time it was so early in
19
the morning there was nobody in the office.
20
only worked the yard area.
21
owner, who works there.
22
The foreman
So he actually called the
He escorted us into the building, and he showed
23
us where his office and the HR was.
24
the search team stood by the door waiting until somebody
25
came to actually open it, to secure it, make sure that
And then myself and
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 220
1
nobody went in there.
owner to show up.
at.
But it was locked.
Waited for the
He showed up, showed us where it was
And then went into his office and interviewed him.
Q.
Did you come out of the office during the
operation?
A.
Toward the very end.
I came out.
They had an
issue with -- oh, it's actually these guys right here in
the Shift Summary.
Two subjects had confused the detectives on the
10
scene was that to show how management doesn't know what's
11
going on a lot of times with their employees.
12
a construction yard, there was groups of actual employees
13
that were -- had friends or people would show up there,
14
and these guys using the company vehicles, these guys were
15
in agreement or paid where these were individuals that
16
were coming off the street.
17
They didn't have any work there.
18
jump on the company trucks, not being company employees,
19
and then be transported to the actual construction yards
20
throughout the valley.
21
would get out on their own and walk around the
22
construction site looking for day work.
This being
They wanted to find work.

So they would actually
And once they got there, they
23
So what they initially thought were employees of
24
this company, until everything got figured out, because I
25
went out there with me, Detective Brockman, and the owner,
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 221
1
and said we can't find any of these guys' -- those guys
aren't even employed.
guy that was driving the truck.
somewhere in there where the driver of the truck said I
picked up these guys.
yards.
And that's how they two individuals came into play.
that's when I had to go out there with the owner and try
to figure out what's going on with these guys.
So that's when they questioned the

And there's a supplement
We'd take them to construction
They'd get jobs, give them some cash, whatever.
10
Q.
And did you talk to those -- to the --
11
A.
I did not.
And
There was a detective that talked to
12
them.
13
when he talked to them, they admitted to him that they
14
were there.
15
There should be a supplement in the report.
And
That's how I remember that story, because that's
16
what they told him.
And that's when we found out from the
17
owner that, yeah, they weren't even employees or the guys
18
would just show up and get helped out.
19
Q.
Had they committed identity theft?
20
A.
No, because they weren't employees.
They were
21
literally guys that would show up.
And the employees were
22
making money on the side by taking them to other spots to
23
look for work.
24
reports or their insurance reports, because technically
25
they weren't employed there.
So they wouldn't even show up on the DES
So they weren't committing,
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 222
1
2
you know, any kind of identity theft or forgery.

Q.
From what you're reading there, is there any
crime that they were committing?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE WITNESS:
Form; foundation.
From them when we worked 287(g), I
can tell you there probably was.
since we can't do it, what you read in the summary, what
happened then is once the owner identified and said these
aren't even employees, our usual protocol was to contact
10
I'm sure there was.
But
ICE or ERO.
11
The timing of this search warrant is the exact
12
same day that the DOJ instructed ICE not to have any
13
contact with MCSO.
14
Because when we called them, that's when they told us we
15
can't respond to any of your calls anymore, per this DOJ,
16
whatever came down from them, unless it involves human
17
trafficking or human smuggling aspects of it.
18
That was exactly the very same day.
Anything else dealing with identity theft,
19
forgery, any other crime besides trafficking or smuggling,
20
they won't talk to us or do anything for us.
21
So that's why -- that was the ICE directive to
22
them.
23
Border Patrol.
24
directive yet, so they agreed to screen them for us.
25
But we have -- since they turned it down, we called

And Border Patrol wasn't told or had that
They screened them, because they do the same
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Page 223
1
thing ICE is authorized to.
They said we'll take them,
but you meet us halfway, because they're actually out of
Ajo.
can bring them down to us, we'll take them.
you halfway and take them from there.
Bend is the halfway.
And so they agreed to take them and told us if you
Q.
I see.
remember?
A.
Okay.
We'll meet
That's why Gila
Who transported them down, do you
MCSO, a marked unit.
We have posse members that
10
they use to transport.
11
take them into custody for us, they got the agent's name
12
and everything, under their authority they took them into
13
custody and then they transported for them.
14
15
Q.
So once Border Patrol said they'd
So timingwise, when was all that happening in
relation to the other events?
16
MR. MASTERSON:
17
THE WITNESS:
18
Form.
That transpired, the stop and
everything, I couldn't tell you because I was inside.
19
Finding out that they weren't employees was near
20
the end, because, remember, I had to walk out with the
21
actual owner, because it was at the very end and we didn't
22
know what to do with these guys.
23
going on.
24
warrant.
25
We didn't know what was
So it somewhere toward the end of the search
* * * *
Suite 260
Phoenix, Az. 85016
Exhibit F

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
THE DEPOSITION OF LT. JOSEPH SOUSA

Phoenix, Arizona
February 4, 2014
9:12 a.m.
PREPARED BY:
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
ASCII
(Copy)

Lt. Joseph Sousa United States of America v. Maricopa County
2/4/2014
Page 12
1
THE WITNESS:
Q.
BY MR. MORSE:
A.
I was the unit lieutenant for the first
No.
I'd -- I'd be guessing.

What was your role with the
HSU?
4
5
two -- for the first two or three years.
captain who was the division commander.
the captain retired, they just made me the division
commander and made the unit a division.
I had a
And then once
Q.
Did your duties change at that point?
10
A.
Once the captain -- yes.
Because now I had
11
basically -- it was more of a broader scope where I had
12
to do more with the liaison with headquarters than
13
before.
14
15
Q.
So previously you were in charge of the
HSU; correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And then you became in charge of the
18
division under which the HSU fell; is that --
19
A.
When it first --
20
Q.
-- true?
21
A.
When it was first formed, it was just a
22
unit that was working under Enforcement Support.
23
Enforcement Support always had a captain.
24
reported to that captain, and I was in charge of the
25
unit.
And
And I
When the captain retired, they just decided to

602.264.2230

2/4/2014
Page 13
1
make Human Smuggling its own division and just put me in
charge of the entire division instead of just the unit.
So, in other words, they changed it from unit to
division and put me in command of it.
Q.
But your rank didn't change?
A.
No, my rank didn't change.
Didn't get any
more money either.
Q.
Sorry.
A.
Approximately two years ago.
When did you leave HSU?

I think -- I
10
think April -- April 1, I'll be in SWAT to two years --
11
back in SWAT for two years.
12
Q.
Did you request that transfer?
13
A.
I did request the transfer, yes.
14
Q.
Why did you request the transfer?
15
A.
Quite frankly, I was tired of talking with
16
17
lawyers.
Q.
No offense.
None taken.
But I don't think it's worked.
18
Other than SWAT and HSU, have you been assigned to other
19
units within MCSO?
20
A.
Yes.
Going backwards prior to going to
21
SWAT, I was a lieutenant in El Mirage.
22
contract town.
23
Keep going back?
24
Q.
25
It was a
At the time I was a watch commander.
Yeah.
All the units that you've been
assigned to within MCSO.

602.264.2230

2/4/2014
Page 178
1
detectives.
2
3
Q.
while another detective would continue to --
4
5
So one detective would make the phone call
A.
I can't -- it's been so long, I -- that's
what I think.
Q.
So do you recall did any sort of directive
come out of the Sheriff's Office, a briefing board or
something similar, around the time that this preliminary
injunction was issued that instructed deputies not to
10
detain anyone that they believed to be in the country
11
without authorization, that they didn't have probable
12
cause that the person had committed a state crime?
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE WITNESS:
Form.
I don't remember a briefing board,
15
because it would being contradictory to the LEAR policy
16
and having them prove it.
17
18
Q.
BY MR. MORSE:
And you don't recall that
information coming out in any other form?
19
A.
Not that I recall.
Because it doesn't make
20
any sense.
21
say, "Hey, this is not going to work in conjunction with
22
this."
23
not a policy decision I can make.
24
25
If I sent the LEAR protocol off, probably
And like I said, the chiefs were involved.
Q.
It's
When court decisions are issued that affect
operations of MCSO, whose responsibility is it to tell

602.264.2230
Exhibit G

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 2:12-cv-00981-ROS
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________)
THE DEPOSITION OF LT. BRIAN JAKOWINICZ

Phoenix, Arizona
February 7, 2014
9:12 a.m.
PREPARED BY:
Certified Reporter
PREPARED FOR:
ASCII
(Copy)

Lt. Brian Jakowinicz
2/7/2014
Page 150
1
A.
Right.
Q.
-- the case agent --
A.
Correct.
Q.
-- to the manager?
A.
Right.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Just don't.
Q.
We're going to hand you an exhibit
I don't remember this one.
previously labeled 100.
At the bottom of the first
10
page, the last paragraph, if you could just read that
11
paragraph.
And it continues to the second page.
12
MR. POPOLIZIO:
13
MS. CHEEMA:
14
Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
15
A.
16
17
To himself?
Yes.
I'm sorry.
To yourself.
I'm reading.
It's not
registering, I'm so out of it.
18
Q.
That's okay.
19
A.
You know how it is when you're sick
20
sometimes.
21
Q.
Take your time.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
It indicates that two people were found at
22
25
Let me know when you're
ready.
the scene who were not employees; right? But they were
602.264.2230

2/7/2014
Page 151
1
looking for work as the warrant was executed?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And they admitted that they were illegally
present in the United States; is that right?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE WITNESS:
Q.
Form.
Yes.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
And detectives attempted to
contact ICE to have them transferred there?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And ICE would not take them?
11
A.
Yes, that's what it says.
12
Q.
And so the decision was made to transport
13
That's what it says.
them to Border Patrol?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Who made that decision?
16
A.
I don't recall.
17
decision it was.
18
Q.
19
decision?
20
A.
Yeah, I would have been involved.
21
Q.
So someone would have cleared that with
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And so you would have authorized that?
25
A.
Yes.
22
I don't remember whose
Should you have been involved in that
you?
602.264.2230

2/7/2014
Page 152
1
Q.
And why would that have been authorized?
A.
Because they admitted to being in the
country illegally.
refused.
5
6
7
8
9
They said -- they
We called Border Patrol, and Border Patrol

said, "Bring them over.
Q.
We want them."
What authority does the Sheriff's Office
have to enforce immigration laws?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
THE WITNESS:
11
Q.
12
We called ICE.
Form, foundation.
We don't enforce immigration laws.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
So what authority did you
have to turn these people over to Border Patrol?
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE WITNESS:
15
Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
Did you call Border Patrol?
18
A.
We called them.
19
Q.
Why did you call them?
20
A.
Because they freely admitted to being in
21
Form.
Border Patrol asked us.
Did Border Patrol call you?
the country illegally.
22
Q.
So who drove them to Border Patrol?
23
A.
It would have been somebody from HSU.
24
25
don't remember who exactly.

Q.
And who would have authorized that person

602.264.2230

2/7/2014
Page 153
1
to drive them to Border Patrol?
A.
Ultimately, I would have.
Q.
And based on what authority?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE WITNESS:
Form.
On what authority?
I mean, as the
commander of Human Smuggling.
"The two people you have there, we want them.
bring them to us," I would say, "Okay.
to you."
10
Q.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
If Border Patrol says,

Please
We'll bring them
So why would you have
11
called Border Patrol?
12
MR. POPOLIZIO:
13
THE WITNESS:
14
they refused to take them.
And they admitted to being
15
in the country illegally.
Border Patrol said that they
16
wanted them.
17
18
Q.
Form.
Because, like I said, ICE said --
BY MS. CHEEMA:
But that's two different
phone calls; right?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
So normally, the protocol was to call ICE?
21
MR. POPOLIZIO:
22
THE WITNESS:
23
Q.
24
25
Form.
Right.
BY MS. CHEEMA:
And ICE said, "We're not
going to take them"?

A.
Right.
602.264.2230

2/7/2014
Page 154
1
2
Q.
So what initiated the second step to call
Border Patrol?
A.
Because ICE refused.
Q.
We're going to hand you what's been
previously labeled Exhibit Number 106.
operation plan for the search warrant at Sonoran
Concrete?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you were the incident commander there?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Where were the employees identified at
12
Is this an
Sonoran Concrete?
13
A.
I don't recall.
14
Q.
Were the employees all identified at
15
Sonoran Concrete?
16
A.
I don't recall.
17
Q.
The sergeant that was with CES before
18
Sergeant Whelan, he mentioned a ratio that was used to
19
decide whether all employees would need to be gathered.
20
Is that ratio still used?
21
A.
I'm not familiar with a ratio.
22
Q.
Okay.
23
Do you remember how long the
operation at Sonoran Concrete was?
24
A.
I don't.
25
Q.
Was it a long operation?

602.264.2230
Exhibit H
Exhibit I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
4
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.
5
Plaintiffs,
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
6
v.
7
DECLARATION OF ANDRE SEGURA IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND FACTS
RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND
REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

8
Defendants.
9
10
11
I, Andre Segura, declare as follows:
12
1.
I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York and have
13
been admitted pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs in this matter. I am staff attorney
14
with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Immigrants Rights Project. I make
15
the following declaration based on my personal knowledge, except where indicated.
16
2.
I make this declaration in support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law
17
and Facts re Contempt Proceedings and Request for Order to Show Cause in the above18
referenced matter.
19
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a letter and
20
enclosures that I sent to counsel for Defendants via e-mail on October 11, 2012 regarding
21
law enforcement actions by the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office conducted in
22
September and October 2012.
23
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a letter I
24
received from Timothy Casey, counsel for Defendants, in response to my October 11
25
letter via e-mail on October 18, 2012.
26
///
27
///
28
Exhibit A
LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
IMMIGRANTS
RIGHTS PROJECT
October 11, 2012

Via Electronic Mail
Timothy J. Casey
Schmitt, Schneck, Smyth & Herrod, P.C.
1221 E. Osborn Rd., Suite 105
Phoenix, 85014-5540
tim@azbarristers.com
RE: Ortega v. Arpaio, No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS
RIGHTS PROJECT
PLEASE RESPOND TO:
NATIONAL OFFICE
125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10004-2400
T/212.549.2660
F/212.549.2654
WWW.ACLU.ORG
CALIFORNIA OFFICE
39 DRUMM STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-4805
T/415.343.0770
F/415.395.0950
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
NADINE STROSSEN
PRESIDENT
ANTHONY D. ROMERO
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
KENNETH B. CLARK
CHAIR, NATIONAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL
RICHARD ZACKS
TREASURER
Dear Tim:
It has come to our attention that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office appears
to be detaining and transporting individuals in violation of the Courts
injunction prohibiting sheriffs deputies from detaining anyone solely on the
basis of suspected unlawful presence. Three recent press releases (enclosed)
indicate that MCSO is continuing to detain individuals on this basis without
any valid state law justification. This news is deeply disturbing to us,
particularly in light of your representation to the Ninth Circuit panel that the
Sheriff was not and did not intend to detain people on this basis.
September 21, 2012: Sheriffs deputies came across five individuals
in the desert. Three individuals were booked into the 4th Avenue Jail
on class 4 felony human smuggling charges. However, Sheriffs
detectives were unable to gather enough evidence on the remaining
two suspects to charge them with a state crime of human smuggling
and attempted to turn the suspects over to ICE as has been the practice
during the last six years. ICE agents, after asking a series of questions,
refused to take the suspects from Sheriffs detectives. When ICE
refused to take the individuals, Arpaio ordered deputies to transport
them to a Border Patrol office.
September 27, 2012: During a workplace investigation conducted on
the purported basis that employees were using false identification,
two illegal aliens [approached the site] looking for work while
deputies were investigating the establishment. Arpaio refused to allow
the suspected illegal aliens to be released into the streets and ordered
the deputies to transport these two suspects to the United States Border
Patrol. ICE had refused to take custody of these individuals.
A1
October 9, 2012: Detectives from the Sheriffs Office Human

Smuggling Unit came into contact with two males during a traffic stop
in Southern Maricopa County. During the investigation, the driver
was unable to provide proper identification to operate a motor vehicle
as required by state law. Both occupants later admitted to being in the
country illegally. The driver was arrested and booked into the 4th
Avenue Jail on state charges while detectives attempted to turn the
passenger over to ICE. When contacted, ICE agents asked a series of
questions then refused to take the illegal alien from Sheriffs
detectives. Deputies then transported the individual to a Border
Patrol office.
AMERI CAN CI VI L L I BERTI ES

UNI ON FOUNDATI ON
In each of these instances, it appears that MCSO had no state law basis to hold
the individuals in question, let alone transport them to some other location.
Please immediately provide the following information about the detentions in
each of these three incidents: the length of time each individual was detained
by the MCSO following the determination not to charge or detain the
individual on any state law basis; the identities of each MCSO officer
involved in the detentions (including the Sheriff, if he gave the order to take
the individuals into custody for the purpose of transporting them to Border
Patrol); any e-mails or documents related to these incidents, including a copy
of the incident report and any CAD incident histories; and a copy of any audio
or other recordings made of communications with dispatch, federal authorities
or other persons in connection with the incidents. We also request such
information for any other stop or detention in which an individual was held
solely on the basis of suspected unlawful status or solely for transfer to federal
immigration authorities.
In addition, please provide written assurance from the Sheriffs Office that
this practice will no longer continue.
Sincerely,
Andre Segura
CC:
Thomas P. Liddy, Esq.
Enclosures (3)
A2
September 21, 2012
First Time:
ICE Refuses to Accept Illegal Aliens

from Sheriffs Deputies During Human Smuggling
Operation
(Maricopa County, AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio is questioning why agents from
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) refused to take illegal aliens

found by deputies in the remote desert yesterday. Arpaio says the federal
agency has made its policy clear: agents will take into custody any illegal
alien believed to have committed a serious crime or is a recent border
crosser.
These suspects are clearly recent border crossers. ICEs refusal to accept
the suspects for possible deportation suggests ICE is ignoring their own
policy, Arpaio says.
In all the years that local ICE agents have cooperated with Maricopa
County Sheriffs deputies in accepting for possible deportation those
suspects involved in the human smuggling trade, yesterdays arrests is the
first departure from what has been a joint effort to comply with the federal
law when ICE agents refused to take two suspected illegal aliens from the
Sheriffs Office Human Smuggling Unit without reason.
Deputies last night came across five suspected illegal aliens in the desert
during a drug interdiction operation. The Sheriffs Human Smuggling
detectives were called to the scene and determined, through interviews, that
100 West Washington, Suite 1900, Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
Media Contact: MediaRequest@MCSO.Maricopa.Gov
1
A3
the group consisted of all Mexican Nationals who had spent the last five
days in the desert.
Three members of the group, identifying themselves as illegal immigrants
to deputies, indicated they had paid approximately $1000 to be smuggled
into the US illegally heading to Phoenix for work. They were booked into
the 4th Avenue Jail on class 4 felony human smuggling charges. Sheriffs
detectives were unable to gather enough evidence on the remaining two
suspects to charge them with a state crime of human smuggling and
attempted to turn the suspects over to ICE as has been the practice during
the last six years. ICE agents, after asking a series of questions, refused to
take the suspects from Sheriffs detectives.
I expected that it would happen eventually, so I had a back up plan in
place which was to take these illegal immigrants not accepted by ICE to the
Border Patrol, Sheriff Arpaio said. So as directed by the Sheriff, last night
deputies took the two suspects to the Border Patrol.
Over the past month Sheriffs detectives have arrested over 45 illegal aliens
and booked all but three into county jail for human smuggling charges.
One was a 17 year old juvenile who was turned over to ICE.
Arpaio remains very concerned that the weak immigration stance taken by
the current administration may exacerbate the numbers of illegals entering
the U.S. In 2008 Homeland Security took away the authority for Maricopa
County Sheriffs deputies to utilize federal authority under the 287g
program. Recently Homeland Security striped the program inside the
Sheriffs jails as well.
While the show me your papers provisions of SB1070 just took effect,
Arpaio says his deputies, who continue to enforce human smuggling, have
Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
2
A4
arrested 253 illegal aliens this year involving illegal aliens crossing the
U.S. Mexico border. Over the past several years, Sheriffs deputies have
arrested over 5648 illegal aliens involved in human smuggling.
Regardless of the Obama Administrations policy, I am going to continue
to enforce all of the illegal immigration laws. While I am disappointed in
ICEs decision last night, I plan on meeting with ICE officials, hoping to
remedy the problem, Sheriff Arpaio says.

Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
3
A5
September 27, 2012
SHERIFFS DEPUTIES EXECUTE SEARCH WARRANT AT

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
CRIMINAL EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION
NETS 17 ARRESTS OF SUSPECTED ILLEGAL ALIENS
(Phoenix, AZ) This morning Sheriffs deputies served a search warrant at United
Construction Group located at 6840 W. Frier Drive in Glendale seeking numerous
suspects whose employment records show they are likely using false identifications.
According to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his deputies received information from an employee
at the warehouse that several employees were suspected of being illegal aliens and
using false identifications.
After a thorough search of employment records, deputies determined that the company
employed 126 workers. Sixteen employees at the company were suspected of using
false identification to gain employment there.
Todays operation marks the 67th criminal employment operation undertaken by the
Sheriffs Office. In previous operations, a total of 647 suspects were arrested by
Sheriffs deputies, 460 for identify theft, a class four felony. All of the suspects
arrested for identity theft were later determined to be illegal aliens.
Arpaio is concerned about Washingtons new policy about not arresting illegal aliens
unless they meet certain criteria. In this investigation, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) refused to arrest two illegal aliens that were looking for work
while deputies were investigating the establishment. Arpaio refused to allow the
suspected illegal aliens to be released into the streets and ordered the deputies to
transport these two suspects to the United States Border Patrol.

Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
1
A6
Illegal immigration continues to be a serious problem in Arizona and the United

States, Sheriff Arpaio says, especially those here illegally stealing peoples identity.
These individuals indirectly open up employee opportunities for businesses and help
increase employment for those in the country legally.

Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
2
A7
October 9th, 2012
2nd Time
ICE Refuses to Accept Illegal Alien
From Sheriffs Deputies since September
(Maricopa County, AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio is once again questioning why agents from
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) refused to take an illegal alien found by
Sheriffs deputies late yesterday afternoon during an interdiction patrol.
Detectives from the Sheriffs Office Human Smuggling Unit came into contact with
two males during a traffic stop in Southern Maricopa County. During the
investigation, the driver was unable to provide proper identification to operate a motor
vehicle as required by state law. Both occupants later admitted to being in the country
illegally.
The driver was arrested and booked into the 4th Avenue Jail on state charges while
detectives attempted to turn the passenger over to ICE.
When contacted, ICE agents asked a series of questions then refused to take the
illegal alien from Sheriffs detectives. An ICE supervisor advised Sheriffs detectives
the illegal alien did not fall into their guidelines for acceptance.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio stated, I continue to enforce the laws but keep running into road
blocks. My office will continue its hard work in efforts to serve the residents of
Maricopa County. My back up plan is still in place and we will continue to take these
illegal aliens not accepted by ICE to the Border Patrol.
Detectives transported the illegal alien to the Border Patrol in Casa Grande where he
was processed for deportation. This is the 82nd arrest made over the last month.

Phone: (602) 876-1801 Fax: (602) 258-2081
1
A8
Exhibit B
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
4
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.
5
Plaintiffs,
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
6
v.
7
DECLARATION OF JESSIE BAIRD IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND FACTS
RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND
REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

8
Defendants.
9
10
11
I, Jessie Baird, declare as follows:
12
1.
I am a paralegal with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
13
Immigrants Rights Project (ACLU-IRP). I am based in San Francisco, California. I
14
am responsible for maintaining ACLU-IRPs electronic case files for the above15
referenced matter. I make the following declaration based on my personal knowledge.
16
2.
I make this declaration in support of the Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law
17
and Facts re: Contempt Proceedings and Request for Order to Show Cause in the above18
referenced matter.
19
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs First
20
Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Defendant Maricopa County
21
Sheriffs Office, served on Defendants on February 25, 2009 by our co-counsel at the
22
firm of Steptoe and Johnson, LLP.
23
4.
In the normal course of business, discovery documents are saved to
24
ACLU-IRPs electronic filing system. On January 8, 2015, I retrieved this document
25
from ACLU-IRPs electronic files.
26
///
27
///
28
Exhibit A

Melendres # 843 - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 843 - Ps Request For OSC Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres # 843 - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 843 - Ps Request For OSC Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 30

Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 30

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)

Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)

Priscilla G. Dodson (Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 3 of 30

Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating the Courts

Defendants In-Court Admissions and Deposition

Defendants Knowingly Continued Their Policy of

Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating This Courts May

Defendants Numerous Acts of Defiance Support the Need for

The Court Should Begin With Limited and Expedited Document

Court Ordered Remedies Are Necessary To Compensate the

The Court Should Order Defendants To Assist in the

The Court Should Order Compensation to the Plaintiff

The Court Should Order Injunctive Relief Provisions To

The Court Should Order Attorneys Fees and Costs.................... 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 4 of 30

721 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................... 20

....................................................................................................................... 19, 22, 24

1225 (3d Cir. 1970) ................................................................................................... 25

Perry v. ODonnell, 759 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................ 24

denial of rehg (Aug. 25, 1992) ............................................................................. 2, 12

Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Stanley, No. 2:07-cv-00954- GMS, 2009 WL 113563

(D. Ariz. Jan. 16, 2009) ............................................................................................. 12

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b); .................................................................................................... 24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 5 of 30

Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following memorandum of law and facts in

other command staff of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO).

orders of the Court.

Monitor to formulate a plan to quietly collect deputies self-recorded videos of traffic

of evidence, and then misleading the Monitor as to their actions.

by the contempt. And because there appears already to be evidence supporting a

Defendants Committed Contempt by Violating the Courts December 23,

required changes in the widespread unconstitutional practices of the MCSO by

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 6 of 30

A. Defendants In-Court Admissions and Deposition Testimony Establish

Courts December 2011 preliminary injunction order to relevant MCSO personnel,

Courts preliminary injunction order to MCSO personnel.

The sworn testimony of command staff in a related matter, United States v.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 7 of 30

complied with the preliminary injunction.

124:14-125:7. Sands, on his part, responded to a question about whether he had

injunction, as he is an attorney who works with outside counsel defending lawsuits

failing to communicate a document retention notice in this litigation, leading to the

spoliation of evidence and sanctions against Defendants, see Doc. 261 at 3.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 843 Filed 01/08/15 Page 8 of 30

In sum, Defendants own admissions establish that they took no stepsmuch

B. Defendants Knowingly Continued Their Policy of Detaining Persons

Since Defendants took no steps to implement and to obey the preliminary

injunction, MCSO continued to detain persons solely based on unlawful presence in

continued detention of individuals solely on the basis of suspected unlawful presence

is in clear violation of this Courts preliminary injunction.

As evidence disclosed thus far establishes, MCSO repeatedly detained persons