Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing

OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2471
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2
3
4
5
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 11, Pages 2471-2711)
17
18
DS
19
Court Reporter:
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Phoenix, Arizona
October 8, 2015
9:03 a.m.
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
16
21
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15
20
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Andre Segura, Esq.
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
7
8
9
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

By: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
P.O. Box 17148
10
11
12
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Tammy Albarran, Esq.
1 Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
13
14
Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
15
16
18
19
20
21
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.
2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700
IEN
22
For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Walker & Peskind, PLLC
By: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.
SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
DS
17
23
24
FR
25
2472
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
1
2
3
4
5
6
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office:
Iafrate & Associates
By: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.
649 N. 2nd Avenue
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.
By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC
By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.
P.O. Box 20527
For the Intervenor United States of America:

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Paul Killebrew, Esq.
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
16
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.
601 D. Street NW, #5011
Washington, D.C. 20004
17
19
20
21
For Brian Mackiewicz:

Sitton Nash
By: Alexandra Mijares Nash, Esq.
301 W. Warner Road, Suite 133
Tempe, Arizona 85284
IEN
22
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

David Eisenberg, PLC
By: David Eisenberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003
DS
18
23
24
FR
25
2473
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
3
4
5
Also present:
Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
6
7
8
9
I N D E X
Witness:
10
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
11
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young

Cross-Examination by Mr. Masterson
Redirect Examination by Mr. Young
Examination by the Court
12
13
14
15
Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Cross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio
17
18
IEN
22
DS
19
21
23
24
FR
25
Page
2497
2504
2536
2556
JOSEPH SOUSA
16
20
2474
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2589
2693
E X H I B I T S
1
2
3
4
5
No.
2008
2555
6
7
2559B
8
9
10
2560
11
12
2561
13
14
15
16
17
18
2837
2856
2898
21
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Description
Admitted
Employee Grievance Response by Chief Deputy

Sheridan, 7/28/2015 (MELC724585-MELC724587)
2681
E-mail from Joseph Sousa to Lisa Allen re

answers to JJ Hensley's questions dated
6/7/2012 (MELC830783-830784)
2608
MCSO Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Chief

Joe Rodriguez, dated 05/19/15, re Grievance
reference discipline received for IA#14-0542
(MELC-IA013644 through MELC-IA013648)
2657
MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report of

Deputy C. Armendariz re missing money from
Amber Marie Murphy's bag dated 5/17/2010
(MELC-IA013516-IA013517)
2648
Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Edward Lopez

re disciplinary action against Sousa for
failure to supervise duties under command in
reference to the proper impounding of evidence
items dated 6/4/2015 (MELC1337432-1337436)
2675
Video Excerpt from The Joe Show, released

February 26, 2014 dated 2/26/2014
2496
MCSO Memorandum re: ICE LEAR Protocol dated

8/18/2009 (MELC1397148-MELC1397149)
2615
MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Joseph Sousa to Chief 2660

Mike Olson, dated 05-14-15, re: Response to
possible disciplinary action. Pre-Determination
Hearing #14-0542 set for 05-15-15
(MELC-IA013686 through MELC-IA013693)
DS
19
20
2475
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2476
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
4
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
This is civil case number 07-2513,
Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continuation of
evidentiary hearing.
Counsel, please announce your appearances.
8
9
MS. WANG:
Good morning, Your Honor.
Cecillia Wang
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
10
11
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. YOUNG:
09:03:21
Stanley Young,
12
Tammy Albarran, and Michelle Morin for plaintiffs, from
13
Covington & Burling.
14
THE COURT:
15
16
Good morning.
MR. POCHODA:
Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona for
MR. KILLEBREW:
Paul
Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States.
19
MR. MASTERSON:
Good morning, Judge Snow.
John
Masterson, Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and the individual
21
contemnors, and with us is Holly McGee.
DS
20
THE COURT:
IEN
22
09:03:44
Good morning.
23
MR. WALKER:
24
on behalf of Maricopa County.
25
injury over the weekend, so I'm not sure whether he'll be
FR
09:03:31
plaintiffs.
17
18
09:03:10
Richard Walker
And Mr. Jirauch suffered an

09:03:58
joining us or not today.

THE COURT:
so...
THE COURT:
5
6
Alexandra Mijares Nash, specially appearing for Brian

Mackiewicz.
THE COURT:
09:04:18
Good morning.
MR. McDONALD:
12
Good morning, Judge Snow.
Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

THE COURT:
14
MR. COMO:
15
Good morning.
Greg Como of
16
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith representing retired Chief
17
Brian Sands.
18
19
21
23
Good morning.
MR. WOODS:
MS. IAFRATE:
09:04:36
Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed

contemnors.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. EISENBERG:
FR
09:04:27
Terry Woods
representing nonparties Stutz and Liddy.
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
09:04:09
Thank you.
MS. MIJARES NASH:
11
13
Involved a concussion,
Well, send him the best of I'm sure not
MR. WALKER:
10
It could be.
just me, but everyone involved.
I hope not serious.
MR. WALKER:
3
4
2477
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Good morning.
David
09:04:46
2478
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Eisenberg specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.
2
3
THE COURT:
Good morning.
All right.
We have a couple of matters to take up
before we resume the testimony of Sheriff Arpaio.
is, I asked both parties to prepare a joint pretrial -- or
joint pretrial-like statement.
plaintiffs' submission late last evening that has Mr. Como's
suggestions.
evening, Mr. Masterson, but I didn't read it till this morning.
10
I don't view it as compliant as to what I requested at
I didn't get one.
I got defendants'.
The first
I got
You may have filed it last
11
all, and I'm going to determine whether or not we're going to
12
recess hearings right now while you hammer out what I'm going
13
to view as being compliant, or go forward if you can provide me
14
with a compliant statement.
I do realize that the parties have been working under
15
16
some difficulty in light of depositions that you had, I presume
17
yesterday, don't know.
18
phone -- Mr. Popolizio was representing defendants -- the need
19
to reschedule some of the subpoena obligations of Mr. Zullo and
20
that deposition, so I realize that you were working with that
21
difficulty.
22
and I will tell you why.
09:05:42
09:06:05
I still don't view this as a compliant statement
I realize that it is all parties' rights not to
24
stipulate to documents if you don't want to, and apparently
25
there are very few to no stipulations as it pertains to
FR
09:05:24
I did discuss with all parties on the
DS
IEN
23
09:05:03
09:06:22
2479
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
documents.
And so because -- I guess if the parties aren't
going to arrive at stipulations, I have to take that into
account in determining what time I'm going to allow, because we
have to have the foundation for every document that is out
there, and if we have to do that, we have to do that.
allow time for that.
I will
We have no statement as to the defendants as to the
7
8
witnesses they wish to call and what they expect those
witnesses to testify to.
We do have that statement as to
10
plaintiffs, but none -- you have identified just witnesses.
11
You haven't indicated what you anticipate their testimony would
12
be at all, Mr. Masterson, and it's impossible for me to assess
13
what kind of time limits I'm going to impose unless you can
14
tell me what your witnesses will testify to.
The plaintiffs, as I said, did provide that, and I
15
16
have a few comments with respect to that, too, that I want to
17
talk about.
18
that kind of information so that I can give you -- so that we
19
can know exactly who's going to be called when.
I realize, too, Mr. Masterson, that you may not choose
to call some of your witnesses, and that's fine.
22
going to get any argument, I think, from anybody at this point.
IEN
21
09:07:14
09:07:31
You're not
23
That's fine.
24
always in civil matters, I require you to disclose the topics
25
of their testimony in a joint pretrial statement, and that
FR
09:06:55
But I'm going to require the defendants to provide
DS
20
09:06:39
But if you're going to call them, as is the case
09:07:47
2480
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
hasn't been done.
What I generally do in civil trials, which I haven't
2
3
done here because discovery was ongoing and apparently still is
ongoing, is I give plaintiffs a certain amount of time and I
give defendants a certain amount of time and I charge against
you the time you spend in direct and cross and all of those
things.
that.
keep in mind the nature of ongoing discovery in this case.
I'm going to go back and do my best to reconstruct
I have kept some rough notes.
But I'm also going to
But one of the things I think Mr. Masterson suggested
10
11
that I think is worth taking up -- we're going to have
12
Lieutenant Sousa in a few minutes; we have Sheriff Arpaio on
13
the stand right now.
14
new discovery require that we go over, sometimes, previous
15
testimony to the extent that that is enlightened by new
16
discovery.
17
indicated Lieutenant Sousa's going to talk about, he already
18
talked about a lot of those topics in his previous testimony.
19
I don't see any need to track over that again unless it's
20
highlighted by some newfound information.
I realize that new matters and new -- and
09:08:55
Lieutenant Sousa.
And I guess I want to know why we're going
23
to have to take three hours with Lieutenant Sousa.
24
of new information do we have that's going to take three hours?
25
And just -- and the only reason I'm doing this, plaintiffs, is
FR
09:08:41
So you've indicated that you'll take three hours with
IEN
22
09:08:21
But with respect to the topics that you've
DS
21
09:08:02
What kind
09:09:13
2481
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to demonstrate exactly what I intend to do when I get
defendants' statement of what they're going to do with
witnesses in setting the trial schedule going forward, so we
know roughly who and what we have and when they're going to be
testifying.
09:09:31
Mr. Jirauch, welcome.
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
Welcome.
MR. JIRAUCH:
THE COURT:
10
THE COURT:
12
MS. WANG:
13
09:09:40
I'm glad I was able to make it.
So is everybody clear on that?
Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
14
Thank you.
Glad to see you here.
MR. JIRAUCH:
11
I'm sorry, Your Honor?
All right.
Let me you ask you first,
15
Mr. Masterson, when can you give me a single document that will
16
have your -- I mean, you've put in a lot of things, but I've
17
indicated what I view as your major deficiency.
18
give me a single document that's going to tell me what your
19
witnesses are going to testify to?

MR. MASTERSON:
DS
20
When can you
Judge, I think we can probably get
that out tonight.
22
what you got last night over the last couple days.
IEN
21
09:10:05
I had put together the -- most of the -Then I
23
received plaintiffs' revised edition with the witness testimony
24
yesterday and did not have time to revise ours and get it to
25
the Court yesterday, but I can do that -- well, after we get
FR
09:09:50
09:10:28
2482
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
done today.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, then I'll look at it
way, way, way, late tonight, or early, early, early tomorrow
morning, so that we can have this discussion, I guess,
tomorrow.
09:10:42
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, just briefly on defendants'
submission last night, they previously provided us with a list
of witnesses through e-mail, on the fly, as we were all working
10
during the hearing.
But last night they listed three new
11
witnesses they previously had not disclosed: Lieutenant Molina,
12
Lieutenant Skinner, and Captain Farnsworth.
13
would request that if they will put those witnesses on the
14
stand, that we have a chance to depose them before that.
And plaintiffs
I also note, Your Honor, that the deposition of Deputy
15
16
Garcia, our request is still pending.
17
deposition on September 16th and followed up again on September
18
29th, and have not heard from defendants as to when that
19
deposition can go forward.
21
Okay.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
24
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
I first requested that
So we have Garcia, Molina,
09:11:39
Correct.
23
25
09:11:19
Farnsworth, and Skinner?
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
09:10:58
Mr. Masterson?
Well, Judge, it was a bit difficult
for us to anticipate who all we needed to call.
I first got
09:11:54
2483
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
witnesses and exhibits shortly before we began a couple weeks
ago, and we've been working diligently since then to put
together what we need to do to respond to what plaintiffs have
presented.
will be maybe a couple more witnesses that we add.
So, yeah, there's a couple new witnesses, and there
I will tell you that it should be no surprise to the
6
7
plaintiffs as to who these people are.
worked on compliance efforts with MCSO, through the monitors
and the Court, and provided substantial assistance to the
They're people who have
10
monitors and put together significant materials and quarterly
11
reports to turn over to the monitors which were then forwarded
12
to the Court.
13
these are folks who have been working with the monitors and the
14
Court to comply with the Court's previous orders.
Well, I assume if you're going to add new
16
witnesses, you're going to do your very best to put them on
17
tonight so we can discuss them tomorrow.

MR. MASTERSON:
18
THE COURT:
19
Do you have any issue, since we're
21
Wednesday, then we have a week and a half off.
22
issue with plaintiffs taking the depositions in that week and a
DS
about -- we've got today and tomorrow, then we have Tuesday and
IEN
09:12:48
Absolutely.
20
09:12:58
Do you have any
half off, of witnesses that you just noticed?
24
MR. MASTERSON:
25
see these seven-hour marathons --
FR
09:12:31
So these were not anybody we've been hiding;
THE COURT:
15
23
09:12:15
I don't.
I don't.
I'd prefer not to

09:13:13
THE COURT:
1
2
you.
2484
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I would prefer that, too.
I don't blame
Ms. Wang.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, I have just one concern based
on what Mr. Masterson just said.
If defendants' intent is to
elicit testimony about MCSO's efforts to comply with other
court orders than the ones that are at issue in this case, or
subject matters other than MCSO's internal accountability
systems, plaintiffs' position would be that that testimony
10
would not be relevant to this civil contempt hearing and the
11
remedies that are at issue.

THE COURT:
12
Well, I guess I get that, Ms. Wang.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
I do, Judge.
We've spent many hours,
15
if not days, in depositions, and certainly many hours in trial,
16
going over testimony and issues concerning Dennis Montgomery
17
and the Seattle investigation because plaintiffs contend -THE COURT:
18
20
that's fine.
DS
information about Montgomery and the Seattle investigation,
MR. MASTERSON:
09:14:17
I don't.
But what I want to do is
IEN
plaintiffs contend that this shows the attitude of the sheriff
23
or MCSO.
24
MCSO is everything they have done to comply with the court
25
orders, rather than what some guy in Seattle did.
FR
09:13:56
Clearly, to me, if you want to introduce
19
22
09:13:39
Do you want to say something, Mr. Masterson?
13
21
09:13:19
My contention is what really shows the attitude of
09:14:31
THE COURT:
2485
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Well, I'll tell you what my inclination
is.
My inclination is to give you at least limited leeway to
do that; I think that's fair game.
I may tell you it's time to stop this.
If it goes too far afield,
As I said, Friday, I've got no interest in stretching
5
6
this thing on through November and December.
indicated to the parties, if you've got factual matters that
you want to argue, I want to do factual -- I want to do all the
factual testimony in this hearing here and now.
But as I've also
And then, as I
10
believe I indicated, I'll give -- I'm trying to keep track of
11
it all.
I'm not sure I'm going to succeed, but I am trying.
13
the end of this hearing I'm going to give you a chance to argue
14
your positions, and then I'm going to make findings of fact.
15
And then, in light of the findings of fact, we'll determine
16
whether or not there are any factual issues outstanding at all;
17
or, B, if we need to, and if we do, the extent to which we need
18
to have experts on Internal Affairs remediation.
19
that's what we've all agreed to, isn't that correct?
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
MR. MASTERSON:
DS
21
23
THE COURT:
09:15:20
I think
I believe so, yes.
09:15:38
Ms. Wang?
Yes, Your Honor.
All right.
So ultimately, I will allow
24
you some leeway to talk to me about efforts at compliance that
25
don't really relate to the matters in contempt.
FR
09:15:03
And what I would like to do is within a few days after
12
20
09:14:45
But it's not
09:15:49
2486
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
going to be unlimited leeway, and it would be one of those
things I would appreciate it.
want to stipulate, and again, that's everybody's right, you
don't have to stipulate to documents.
some -- that you might at least try to stipulate with the
parties the extent to which there has been compliance.
Apparently, you know, you don't
But I would suspect that
09:16:04
I have already stated on the record, and I don't
7
8
suppose that anybody's going to tell me that I can't talk about
matters that are in the record, even if they aren't part of
10
this hearing.
But I've already stated on the record that I
11
attended, for example, unannounced, the initial training of
12
MCSO personnel and I found that training to be impressive.
13
did note that I came unannounced, and I don't have any reason
14
to believe that Chief Deputy Sheridan knew I was coming, and
15
yet I attended the training in which he himself was.
16
complimented him for that.
09:16:20
So there have been some things that, while I have been
17
very discouraged at a number of things, there certainly have
19
been things that I've placed on the record that I've noted
20
constituted what I thought to be at least good faith attempts
21
to comply with my order.
DS
18
23
monitor has already done in terms of his quarterly assessments
24
and the extent to which he assesses that MCSO's in compliance.
25
And I'm not going to open up a whole bunch of arguments about
FR
09:16:57
But I also don't think that we need to review what the
IEN
22
09:16:40
09:17:14
2487
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
whether or not the monitor's assessments in his normal
quarterly reports are accurate, because there's a procedure by
which you can contest those, and as far as I'm aware, you have
never contested any of those on relevant issues.
So I'd suggest that you go back, look at those monitor
5
6
reports, look at areas where I've indicated that I've noted
compliance, look at areas where I've noted noncompliance, and
maybe you can stipulate to a lot of that stuff.
Does that sound reasonable to you, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON:
10
THE COURT:
11
It does, Judge.
All right.
and pull that together tonight?
13
e-mail message that Mr. Young sent everybody yesterday and
14
copied my office there's a possibility there might be some dead
15
time tomorrow.
16
to sort of shore up the rest of this schedule so we know what
17
we're doing.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
DS
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
And so maybe we can use it
That makes a lot of sense.
All right.
Ms. Wang, did you have --
09:18:13
Your Honor, as to that point, we've done
23
tomorrow.
24
had scheduling issues and cannot go until next week, so we
25
tried to move up the subsequent witnesses and tried to work
FR
09:17:59
our best to rearrange with defendants to avoid dead time
IEN
22
I gathered from some sort of
Does that make sense, too?
18
21
I hate dead time.
09:17:46
But if you can, can you try
12
20
09:17:31
The issue was that Captain Bailey and Mr. Vogel both
09:18:27
2488
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
with defendants to make them available tomorrow to try to avoid
running out of witnesses.

THE COURT:
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
And I just want to point out, Judge,
that we're going to do our best.
the order that we were given yesterday and the day before, and
then I got another shift or move of the witnesses this morning
when I got in.
afternoon, I didn't get it until this morning.
10
We scheduled the witnesses in
Although I think it was sent yesterday
So we're trying
now to see if we can move people around, and we'll do our best.
THE COURT:
11
I'd appreciate that.
13
productively on other matters.
14
matters that we can take up and maybe use some time
15
productively.
It seems like we do have
09:19:12
Do we want to now discuss what we anticipate that
16
17
schedule to be, so everybody knows what we're talking about?
18
Today we have Sheriff Arpaio, obviously; and then I
gather you're going to call Lieutenant Sousa.

MS. WANG:
DS
20
Yes, Your Honor.
And then after
Lieutenant Sousa we are prepared to go forward with
22
Sergeant Tennyson; and then we will skip to Chief Olson, if he
IEN
21
23
24
FR
25
09:18:58
To the extent that we do have time, let's use it
12
19
09:18:38
09:19:24
is available, and Sergeant Anglin.

THE COURT:
All right.
It looked to me like your
estimates for Tennyson and Olson were reasonable, given --
09:19:46
2489
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
given that, so I don't have any issue with your time estimates
on Tennyson and Olson and Anglin.
Are those the witnesses you anticipate for rest of the
3
4
week, or are there others?

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
I believe that's it, Your Honor.

All right.
We now probably need to take up -- I did receive a
7
8
filing under seal from Mr. Conrad.
accepting the filing under seal, I'm going to do that.

MS. WANG:
10
11
If nobody objects to my
Your Honor, plaintiffs do not have that
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
13
THE COURT:
14
Hmm.
I do not know what it is.
On the motion to seal pleading filed by
15
Mr. Conrad, he shows it being sent to Iafrate, Masterson,
16
Young, Pedley, Pochoda, Wang, Segura, Lai, Castillo, Walker,
17
McDonald, Birnbaum, Stein, Mitchell, Wilenchik, Como,
18
Eisenberg, Rapp, Woods, Clark, Killebrew, Nash.
DS
MS. WANG:
We have a copy of the motion; we do not
THE COURT:
All right.
23
seal, he filed it ex parte?
24
MS. WANG:
FR
25
09:20:50
have a copy of any document that --
IEN
22
09:20:29
Did you not receive it?
19
21
09:20:17
document.
12
20
09:20:06
in the mail.
So he not only filed it under
That appears to be the case, unless it is

09:21:02
THE COURT:
Well, we received -- at least to my
knowledge, we received what Ms. Wang received.

THE COURT:
4
5
Mr. Masterson, did you receive it?
MR. MASTERSON:
2
3
2490
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
All right.
But you didn't receive the
substance of his explanation?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
09:21:13
No.
All right.
Well, then, I will inform the
parties that he has apparently filed something, a motion that
is ex parte as well as under seal.
And I will also inform the
10
parties that I have read that motion, not understanding that it
11
was filed ex parte and not merely under seal.
I don't really think that is appropriate.
12
However, I
13
can understand him not necessarily wanting Ms. Nash to see
14
everything that he said.
But I will tell you what my upshot is.
15
He's not here.
16
Ms. Iafrate, I think, contacted him and indicated she had, and
17
that we would give them until today to set forth any case that
18
they thought why matters should be under seal.
things.
First, it is to show what Mr. Conrad has filed to all
21
the parties so that it is not an ex parte motion.
22
parties, I guess I only mean all parties in this context, and
IEN
DS
20
09:22:07
And by all
23
not necessarily specially appearing parties, including
24
Ms. Nash.
FR
09:21:47
I'm going to say that my inclination is to do two
19
25
09:21:26
But I will also tell you -- and in fact, if I need to
09:22:32
2491
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
show it to you right now, I will show it to you right now --
that in that motion he does acknowledge that the -- there seems
to have been quite a bit of public dissemination of the fact
that Mr. -- or that Detective Mackiewicz is under a criminal
investigation.
things to be under seal.
course, he expresses what I view as a rather general preference
to not have anybody know anything about criminal investigations
that are ongoing.
He does not believe that that is the basis for

He does express some concerns.
And,
As I indicated to Ms. Iafrate on Friday, however, that
10
11
generalized concern does not seem to me to weigh, when I have
12
to balance matters in which there is a public interest against
13
any law enforcement privilege which requires a balancing.
the extent that matters pertaining to items that have already
16
been admitted into evidence in this matter, or matters that are
17
the topics of investigation that everybody knows that
18
detective -- or everybody has testified that
19
Detective Mackiewicz is already -- or Mackiewicz is already
20
aware of, if you have questions that relate to that, to those
21
topics, and don't go any further for Sheriff Arpaio, I'm
22
inclined to allow you to ask them.
IEN
DS
15
09:23:27
09:23:46
However, on a question-by-question basis, or if the
24
parties want to review that now and express generalized concern
25
so that any sort of privilege that they may -- or any sort of
FR
09:23:09
So I will tell you that it would be my inclination, to
14
23
09:22:52
09:24:02
2492
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
concern they may have about impairing investigations is raised
and not -- raised before it's raised in on court, I'll hear you
now.
Mr. Masterson.
MR. MASTERSON:
5
6
THE COURT:
Sure.
Ms. Wang?
MS. WANG:
We'd like to see it, too.
THE COURT:
10
MR. COMO:
11
Mr. Como?
09:24:24
It's not really necessary for me to see it,
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
THE COURT:
15
And Mr. Walker?
I'd like to see it, Your Honor.
All right.
Well, why don't you parties
16
come to sidebar and I will show you my copy of the document.
17
I've only got one, and actually, unfortunately, it contains
18
some of my notes, but I guess, without waiving any privilege --
19
Well, can you print off a copy for me from the docket?
What is it?
THE COURT:
It is docket document 1443 lodged under
23
THE CLERK:
Do you want the entire thing printed?
24
THE COURT:
I'm sorry?
25
THE CLERK:
The entire thing?
21
FR
09:24:31
09:24:51
seal.
IEN
22
DS
THE CLERK:
20
09:24:18
document, please, Judge.
12
I believe I'd like to see the
09:25:25
THE COURT:
1
2
It's the document that's entitled Response
to Court's Inquiry of the Arizona Attorney General.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
3
4
2493
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
clerk.)
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE COURT:
If the parties want to take -- and I'm
just talking parties now -- if the parties want to take a
minute, review that rather brief pleading, then I'll discuss it
with you at sidebar if you wish.
(Off-the-record discussion between counsel.)
10
THE COURT:
11
12
MS. WANG:
(Page 2493, line 15, through page 2495, line 6, sealed
15
by order of the Court.)
17
18
21
IEN
22
DS
19
20
23
24
FR
25
Yes.
(Bench conference on the record.)
14
16
The parties ready to discuss this at
sidebar if they wish to?
13
09:26:35
09:30:15
1
2
3
4
5
6
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT:
Mr. Young.
Good morning, Sheriff.
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
10
THE COURT:
11
Good morning, sir.
though we've had an intervening weekend.
13
you're under oath, and I'll remind you -- let's find one of
14
those headsets that works for you right now.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:
15
THE COURT:
16
hear.
THE COURT:
19
21
MR. MASTERSON:
24
THE COURT:
FR
Right.
Yes.
09:33:50
Would you, Mr. Masterson, speak so that we
23
25
09:33:42
can make sure Sheriff Arpaio can hear you?
IEN
22
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Can you hear this all right?
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
DS
20
I'll remind you
I'll give you a test, make sure you can
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
18
09:33:29
I just remind you you're under oath, even
12
17
2495
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that, Sheriff Arpaio?
Objection, argumentative.
Can you hear that, Mr. -- can you hear

09:34:00
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
All right.
Are they comfortable?
Yes.
All right.
Mr. Young.
MS. WANG:
09:34:05
Thank you, Your Honor.
I do have, on
further reflection, a few more questions for Sheriff Arpaio.

Actually, I have one housekeeping matter as well.
8
9
Yes, sir.
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
2496
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
On
Friday, we discussed and viewed, and Your Honor admitted, a
10
video exhibit which is an excerpt from the movie The Joe Show,
11
and I believe that the transcript reflects that as
12
Exhibit 2837A.
13
to that, so it's actually Exhibit 2837 with no letter suffix,
14
and I would ask that the record be clarified to reflect the
15
admission of that exhibit.
MR. WALKER:
18
THE COURT:
19
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
No, Judge.
No objection.
The record will be reflected to admit
Exhibit 2837.
DS
21
09:34:58
(Exhibit No. 2837 is admitted into evidence.)

MR. YOUNG:
09:34:48
Any problem with that?
MR. MASTERSON:
17
20
I've actually realized that there's no A suffix
THE COURT:
16
09:34:20
2497
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
1
2
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
4
5
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
in the newspaper about the fact that Senator Jon Kyle, former
Senator Jon Kyle, joined Covington & Burling.
something, I believe, to the effect that you had read that
10
Sheriff, you testified last week about reading an article
And you said
relatively recently within the last couple months.
I'm going to show you a newspaper article from the
11
12
Associated Press from March 2013, if Mr. Klein can show that.
13
I ask whether that refreshes your recollection that, in fact,
14
it wasn't within the last couple months but it was actually
15
prior to November 2013 that you first read that Senator Kyle
16
had join Covington & Burling?
17
A.
18
first read the article you're referring to.
19
an article recently from The Arizona Republic where they
20
mentioned Senator Kyle's involvement with that law firm, and he
21
was a consultant for many firms, so that's what I was
22
remembering.
09:35:38
Well, excuse me, first of all, I don't recall saying that I
IEN
DS
I was referring to
09:36:02
That was about two months ago.
23
Q.
24
Covington & Burling, correct?
25
A.
FR
09:35:16
In November 2013 you knew that Senator Kyle was with
Well, it's a little confusing, because I'm not sure, once
09:36:23
2498
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
you leave office, it takes two years to join a law firm, so I'm
not sure it has the time element.
Q.
about the issue of legal advice and lawyers with respect to the
injunction.
you that under the injunction you were allowed to take illegal
immigrants to the Border Patrol, correct?
A.
I don't recall anyone saying you can't do it.
Q.
Well, my question, Sheriff, is:
It could be.
Sheriff Arpaio, I'm going to ask you some questions now
You do not recall any lawyer affirmatively telling
Do you recall any lawyer
10
saying that you could do that?
11
A.
12
negative or a positive.
13
Q.
14
deposition from September 18.
15
644, line 6, and it is clip number 67.
09:37:20
I remember asking that question, and I didn't get a
Sheriff, I'm going to have you look at a portion of your
It's page 643, line 3, to page
"Question:
17
Can you tell me everything that either
Mr. Casey or any other attorney has told you about that issue?
"Answer:
19
Well, the main thing was when I made that
statement that we were going to use the Border Patrol to
21
replace ICE since ICE had a policy not to do it anymore, and
22
since we work closely with the Border Patrol on drugs and
IEN
DS
20
23
everything else, that I didn't seem to have any pressure not to
24
do it when I said that's what I was going to do.
FR
25
09:37:42
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)
16
18
09:36:55
"Question:
Did any lawyer affirmatively tell you that
09:38:13
09:38:40
2499
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that was permitted under the preliminary injunction?
"I'm not asking about silence or acquiescence.
I'm
asking whether any lawyer actually affirmatively told you,
'Yes.
You can do this'?

"Answer:
5
6
"Question:
"Answer:
Okay.
And still are probably, but I know that
doesn't resolve the Judge's issue we're working under his --
10
his decisions, but I don't remember anybody saying you can't do
11
it."
13
BY MR. YOUNG:
14
Q.
15
September 18?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Now --
Sheriff, was that testimony accurate when you gave it on
MR. YOUNG:
then I'll reread the rest of it, or would -THE COURT:
It's your examination.
24
MR. YOUNG:
Yeah.
FR
09:39:45
Well, can I ask the question first and
23
25
Under 106,
Excuse me, through line 25 on page 644.
IEN
22
Your Honor, excuse me.
could we also read through line 20 on page 644?
DS
21
09:39:28
MR. MASTERSON:
18
20
09:39:17
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
12
19
09:38:58
recall, other agencies were doing it.
Well, I don't recall any lawyer, but if I do
BY MR. YOUNG:
09:40:01
2500
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Well, Sheriff, the part that you just saw, was that
accurate?
A.
To the best of my knowledge.
4
5
MR. YOUNG:
Now I'm going to read the rest of it:
"Question:
Okay.
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, I understand that."
Excuse me.
09:40:10
I don't know if we have it
on video or not, but we heard it the first time on video; if we
could hear the remainder on video.

THE COURT:
9
10
that.
12
So Mr. Klein, if you could play page 644,
starting at line 7, going down to line 25.
13
"Answer:
14
15
09:40:25
MR. YOUNG:
11
If you have that capability, we should do
-- his decisions, but I don't remember
anybody saying you can't do it.

"Question:
16
Okay.
Well, I understand that.
09:41:13
My
17
question is:
18
could do that, that is, take people to the Border Patrol after
19
ICE was refusing that?
21
"Question:
"MR. MASTERSON:
24
"Answer:
FR
09:41:31
Did anyone affirmatively and positively
23
25
Form, foundation.
tell you, 'This is okay under the injunction'?
IEN
22
"MR. MASTERSON:
DS
20
Do you remember any lawyer telling you that you
Form, foundation.
I don't recall other than I believe what
Casey when the matter came up, and he never said you can't do
09:41:44
2501
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
it.
So I don't know how you would take that.
it was okay to do because I wanted some advice before I did it.

"Question:
3
4
Did Casey tell you, 'Yes, you can do that
and it complies with the injunction'?

"Answer:
I don't recall him either way.
not having a problem with it.
"Question:
I recall him
Okay."
BY MR. YOUNG:
10
Q.
11
back in October 2012 to plaintiffs, responding to questions
12
raised by plaintiffs about whether your backup plan for taking
13
people to the Border Patrol violated the preliminary
14
injunction, correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Well, I read it recently, but I may have read it way back,
18
I'm not sure.
19
Q.
20
to play for you page 391, lines 12 through 16.
23
09:42:36
You do not recall ever reading that letter, correct?
09:43:02
That is clip number 9.

"Question:
So you never read a letter from Mr. Casey
24
on the issue of whether your office was violating the
25
injunction; is that right?
FR
09:42:17
Sheriff, on your September 17, 2015 deposition, I'm going
IEN
22
Sheriff, you now have heard that Mr. Casey wrote a letter
DS
21
09:42:05
8
9
I took it like
09:43:21
"Answer:
2502
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I don't recall."
2
3
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
That testimony was accurate when you gave it, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And in fact, until September 16, 2015, just a few weeks
ago, you had never even heard about Mr. Casey writing such a
letter, is that correct?
A.
09:43:32
I said before I may I have read the letters, but I don't
10
recall the time frame.
11
Q.
12
deposition, from line 18 of that page to line 20 of page 392.
Well, Sheriff, I'm going to now go to page 391 of your
MR. MASTERSON:
13
MR. YOUNG:
14
15
09:43:53
What page, please?
Yeah, page 391, starting at line 18, going
to page 392, starting at line 20.
09:44:11
It is clip number 10.
16
17
"Question:
18
Well, how did you hear about a letter that
Mr. Casey wrote as you described a few minutes ago on the issue
20
of whether your office was violating the injunction?
21
"Answer:
09:44:29
Well, I think in passing, the chief deputy
may have mentioned something like that which surprised me.
IEN
22
DS
19
never saw anything.
24
"Question:
25
"What did Chief Sheridan tell you about Mr. Casey's
FR
23
What did Mr. -- strike that.
Sorry.
09:44:44
letter?
"Answer:
2
3
I just -- just a brief comment, and I don't
know about the letter, what was in it.

"Question:
4
5
2503
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
When did Chief Sheridan make this brief
comment to you about Mr. Casey's letter?

"Answer:
I think it was in passing yesterday.
"Question:
Before Chief Sheridan made the brief
comment about Mr. Casey's letter to you yesterday, had you ever
heard about Mr. Casey's letter before?

"Answer:
10
No."
09:45:22
11
12
BY MR. YOUNG:
13
Q.
14
September 17, 2015?
15
A.
16
about.
17
Q.
18
with any other lawyer, correct?
19
A.
Sheriff, did you testify accurately, as we just saw, on
Yes.
Actually, I didn't know what letter he was talking
Not that I can recall.

MR. YOUNG:
I think it was Mr. Casey.
Sheriff, I may have some more questions
for you after your attorney has asked his questions, but for
22
now I'm out of questions.
IEN
21
23
THE WITNESS:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
09:45:35
Other than Mr. Casey, you never discussed your backup plan
DS
20
09:45:02
09:45:55
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Masterson.
Me.
You or Mr. Popolizio?

09:46:13
THE COURT:
2504
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio - CX Masterson, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
Okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
2
3
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q.
Good morning, Sheriff.
A.
Okay.
Q.
Can you hear me okay up here?
A.
Loud and clear.
Q.
Okay.
A.
It's my fault if I mess up.
10
Q.
Well, I sometimes talk low, too, so I'll try to stay close
11
to the microphone here.
How are you this morning?
09:46:29
I want to start with talking about the first time you
12
13
mentioned you met with Mr. Blixseth.
14
questions last week about that very first meeting.
Mr. Young asked you some
Could you tell me when you recall -- if you do -- when
15
you first met with Mr. Blixseth?
17
A.
I believe it was around October, November of '13.
18
Q.
Of 2013?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And did Mr. Blixseth come here?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
What do you recall occurring at that meeting?
IEN
DS
16
23
A.
24
into bank accounts, stealing ID and financial statements.
25
Q.
FR
09:46:35
09:46:52
09:47:07
Well, he had some information about banking, people going
Did he tell you where he got that information?
09:47:30
2505
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm not sure whether he said he received it from the
source, Montgomery.
Q.
Did he mention Mr. Montgomery at that time?
A.
He may have.
Q.
Did he mention the man's first name, Dennis Montgomery?
A.
If he mentioned Montgomery, I'm sure the first name came
out.
Q.
2013, did he tell you anything about Judge Snow?
When you first met with Mr. Blixseth in October, November
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
Did you ask him anything about Judge Snow?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Sheriff, I want to look at Exhibit 2074A, and I think it
14
should be somewhere in that massive pile in front of you there.
15
A.
2074?
16
Q.
2074A.
17
A.
I'll get there.
18
Q.
And to help you, it's the one that we've been calling, I
19
think, a time line.
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Do you have that document, sir?
22
A.
Yes.
09:48:12
09:48:42
IEN
DS
It says DOJ/Arpaio.
23
Q.
Do you recall when you got that document?
24
A.
I know what the date is, but I don't recall.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
09:47:50
What's the date on it up at the top?
09:49:09
09:49:22
2506
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
It's November 5, 2013.
Q.
Okay.
document, or anything like that document?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ask Mr. Blixseth to tell Dennis Montgomery to give
you this document or anything like that document?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ask anyone at MCSO, whether it be
Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo, to have Dennis
Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to give you that
10
Montgomery give you that document or some document like that?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Did you, prior to November 5, 2013, ask Dennis Montgomery
13
to do anything at all to look into Judge Snow or anything about
14
Judge Snow?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to
17
have Dennis Montgomery do anything to investigate Judge Snow
18
prior to --
20
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, ambiguous.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
21
BY MR. MASTERSON:
22
Q.
09:50:36
IEN
Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz or Posseman Mike Zullo to
23
do anything, or ask Dennis Montgomery to provide information
24
like Exhibit 2074A to you, or to look into or investigate
25
Judge Snow?
FR
09:50:01
09:50:19
DS
19
09:49:43
09:50:56
2507
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No.
Q.
I think you told Mr. Young you recall meeting with Dennis
Montgomery at some point?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And I thought you said something maybe at a hotel?
remember that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you recall when that was?
A.
I'm not sure whether it was the first part of 2014.
Do you
Could
10
be.
11
Q.
Do you recall what you talked about with Dennis Montgomery?
12
A.
I believe we were talking about the banking fraud.
13
Q.
Did you ever see any list of banking information while you
14
were meeting with Dennis Montgomery?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
While you were meeting with Dennis Montgomery, did you ever
17
discuss Judge Snow at all?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Did you ask Mr. -- Dennis Montgomery to provide you or --
20
investi -- provide you with any information about Judge Snow?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Did you ask Dennis Montgomery to investigate Judge Snow?
IEN
DS
09:51:26
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
Do you recall any information that Mr. Montgomery provided
25
to you about this banking information at that meeting?
FR
09:51:08
09:51:48
09:52:03
09:52:21
2508
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't believe at that meeting.
Q.
Do you recall in general, and I'm not asking you for any
specifics at this point, but do you recall in general any
information that was provided to you about what that banking
information supposedly consisted of?
A.
people living in Maricopa County were victims, and I believe
the maybe 300, 350,000 outside of Maricopa County but in
Arizona.
Well, I remember the information I got was about 150,000
Q.
And how did you receive that information?
11
A.
I believe I received it from the investigators.
12
Q.
Would that be Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Did you ever see a list itself, or any computerized
15
document, of banking information from folks here in Maricopa
16
County?
17
A.
No.
18
Q.
Did you ever receive information that Judge Snow's name was
19
in that banking information?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Tell me about that.
22
did you hear about that?
IEN
DS
10
09:53:13
09:53:29
09:53:44
What did you learn about that or what
23
A.
24
judges across the nation, plus many businesses, plus my name.
25
My wife was in that situation.
FR
09:52:46
Well, I heard that there was not just Judge Snow, but other
09:54:08
2509
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You learned that information from Detective Mackiewicz or
Mike Zullo?
A.
I'm not sure which one, but it was one of them.
Q.
Did they tell you that Judge Snow's personal information
was in the banking information supposedly provided by Dennis
Montgomery?
A.
in there, including the judge, I believe.
Q.
Yes.
Is that how that happened?
I think they mentioned a few with the same name was
Was this information they saw -- and if you know; if you
10
don't know, that's fine, just tell me.
11
they saw this banking information with Judge Snow's name in it,
12
or is this something that Dennis Montgomery is telling them?
13
A.
I don't know.
14
Q.
So you don't know whether they saw Judge Snow's name on a
15
list, or whether Dennis Montgomery told them that Judge Snow's
16
name was on the list, is that correct?
17
A.
18
don't recall if they said they physically or visually saw it
19
themselves.
20
Q.
21
personal information and your wife's personal information was
22
on the list?
No.
Do you know whether
09:55:10
I mean, the point is they could have seen it, but I
DS
And I think you just told me -- or were you told that your
IEN
09:54:51
I don't know whether they saw it themselves.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And again, who told you that?
25
A.
One of the investigators.
FR
09:54:34
09:55:26
09:55:38
2510
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Either Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you still have 2074A up there in front of you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does that exhibit -- and I actually don't know whether you
have a redacted version or not, but does that exhibit have your
personal cell phone number on it?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know, does it have Chief Sheridan's personal
cell phone number on it?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And are the personal cell phones that are listed in
13
Exhibit 2074A, are those next to the -- rather, are those on
14
the lines that are delineated DOJ wiretap and then a number?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Did that cause you any concern at this point when you saw
17
DOJ wiretap number and then your personal cell phone number?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Tell me about why that might have given you some concern at
20
that point.
21
A.
22
federal law enforcement official for many, many years, and the
DS
10
IEN
Well, you know -- excuse me.
09:56:21
09:56:43
09:57:04
You know, after being a top
23
possibility that the government agency is tapping my lines is a
24
little concerning.
25
Q.
FR
09:55:58
And that document is dated November 5, 2013, correct?
09:57:31
2511
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, I want to talk about November 6, 2013, the very next
day.
with someone named JC?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you recall that as you're sitting here today, that phone
call and what you were told during that phone call?
A.
from a person, a journalist, that my wife's telephone home
Do you recall talking with Mr. Young about a phone call
09:57:51
Well, in general terms, I believe he received information
10
number was being tapped.
11
also.
12
line.
13
Q.
Was this by two entirely different people?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Did both of them -- well, I understand that you didn't talk
16
to Dennis Montgomery when you saw Exhibit 2074A, but that
17
document does refer to DOJ wiretaps, is that correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And then I think you just told us that the very next day
20
when you talked with this JC person, did that person tell you
21
that your phones were being tapped by the feds?
22
A.
09:58:17
DS
Here I get two different stories about my telephone
09:58:33
09:58:51
IEN
Well, I don't know, excuse me, what agency; could have been
23
CIA or whatever.
24
Q.
25
2013?
FR
And of course, that concerned me
Do you recall if CIA was mentioned to you on November 6,

09:59:11
2512
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I believe it may have been.
Q.
Now, let me ask you this:
before, or before that, were you told that Dennis Montgomery
was somehow involved with the CIA?
A.
I don't think I knew that.
Q.
Okay.
different sources were telling you that your personal phone is
being tapped by someone in the federal government.
9
10
On November 5, 2013, the day
Or did you know that yet?
09:59:29
So on November 5 and November 6, 2013, two entirely
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, leading.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
11
BY MR. MASTERSON:
12
Q.
13
people that your phones were tapped?
09:59:53
Were you told on November 5 and November 6 by two different
14
15
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, leading.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
10:00:10
16
BY MR. MASTERSON:
17
Q.
18
look at the line September 28, 2009.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
What does it say right next to that?
21
A.
It says "DOJ wiretap" and then a number.
22
Q.
Do you have an opinion as to what the initials "DOJ" stand
Well, Sheriff, take a look at Exhibit 2074A, please, and
IEN
DS
You see that?
for?
24
A.
I would imagine the "Department of Justice."
25
Q.
And under that on the line May 28, 2010, do you see that?
FR
23
10:00:32
10:00:48
A.
Yes.
Q.
What does that line say right next to that?
A.
"DOJ wiretap" plus a number.
Q.
"DOJ."
A.
I believe it's the chief deputy.
Q.
No, what does the "DOJ" stand for?
A.
Department of Justice.
Q.
Is the Department of Justice part of the federal
government?
Who would that be, in your opinion?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
The very next day on November 6th --
13
interrupt here?
Do you know, Mr. Masterson, could I
I just want one more point of clarification.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
THE COURT:
15
10:01:06
10:01:17
THE COURT:
12
2513
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Certainly, Judge.
If you can, Sheriff, just by referring to
16
the DOJ wiretap number, which one of those was you and which
17
one was Chief Deputy Sheridan?
18
and which one did you believe to be of Chief Deputy Sheridan?

THE WITNESS:
19
21
THE COURT:
23
Your Honor, excuse me.
I go by the
10:01:45
Sure.
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
Or did you believe to be you,
phone number.
DS
20
THE COURT:
It's my phone number.

Yeah.
And you don't have to tell me your
24
phone number, but you'll see that the one that has your phone
25
number has a DOJ wiretap number associated with it?
FR
10:01:28
10:01:52
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
2
3
Could you tell me the DOJ wiretap
THE WITNESS:
Well, I can give it out, but I don't
know if it's --
THE COURT:
6
7
Yes.
number that is associated with your phone number.
4
5
2514
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
10:02:04
Yeah, I don't think it hurts if you give
out the wiretap number; don't give out your phone number.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
It's 56990-34.
All right.
And what is the DOJ wiretap
10
number that is supposedly associated with Chief Deputy
11
Sheridan's phone number?

THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
13
It's 64402-03.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Masterson.
14
15
BY MR. MASTERSON:
16
Q.
17
tell you your phones were being tapped?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Were you told who was tapping your phones?
20
A.
I think the mention was the CIA.
21
Q.
Was the November 6th information completely from a
22
different source than November 5 information?
10:02:30
IEN
DS
Now, on the very next day on November 6th, 2013, did anyone
23
A.
That I know of, yes.
24
Q.
When Mr. Young was asking you questions you used the word
25
"bizarre."
FR
10:02:18
Can you tell me what you meant by that?
10:02:47
10:03:11
2515
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Well, it is bizarre when you look at my situation.
I do
know that I was a little concerned.
that year someone sent me a, personally to me a bomb, and the
FBI postal inspector spent a year to catch the guy.
convicted in federal court here and also in Oklahoma.
I believe around June of
He was
10:03:55
And three months later, another e-mail comes to kill
6
7
my wife and my grandkids, and the threats continued.
I think
that person is now in court.
seems that it was a pretty rough six months with these alleged
So I had a little concern.
It
10
wiretaps and threats.
11
Q.
12
the federal government was tapping your phones?
13
A.
If it was true, yes, I would be concerned.
14
Q.
Did you want to look into that and see if you could find
15
out what was going on?
16
A.
17
believe our detectives or Montgomery had mentioned that
18
Montgomery could get a voice sample of those telephone calls.
19
I'm not an expert, I don't know if they can or they can't, but
20
that's what I was told.
21
Q.
22
Mr. Montgomery to come up with, I guess, a recording of the
10:04:28
Were you curious about what was going on if somebody from
10:04:49
DS
Well, my main objective was to get more information.
IEN
Tell me a little bit about that.
10:05:17
Were you trying to get
23
wiretap on you?
24
A.
25
liability, whether this is all garbage or not.
FR
Is that what you're telling me?
Well, that's one reason, and another is to verify his

10:05:36
2516
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Do you recall -- and I think you talked about it with
Mr. Young a little bit -- a meeting at your office, and I don't
want to put words on your -- in your mouth, but I think you
testified that Detective Mackiewicz or Mike Zullo or both of
them were on the phone.
10:06:00
Do you recall that?
6
7
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell -- tell us what you recall learning at that
meeting.
10
A.
Well -- excuse me.
One thing that concerned me was the
11
government or someone infiltrating my office and the County
12
Attorney's Office, and even the -- my law firm.
13
Q.
Now, when you say your law firm, what do you mean?
14
A.
That's the law firm I'm using that you're representing.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
and the County Attorney's Office and my law firm.
10:06:10
My law firm.
10:06:41
You just said you were concerned about your office
Can you tell me why you were concerned about that?
19
A.
Well, I think that's a big security breach when people are
21
going into the sensitive information of a government agency and
22
also a law firm.
IEN
DS
20
Q.
24
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, or my law firm?
25
A.
FR
23
10:06:55
What were you told about a possible breach of your agency,
Well, the main thing was that they were going into it.
10:07:14
2517
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
didn't get all the information if they got anything or not.
do know the law firm triggered my interest because it was
mentioned that one of the lawyers' kid was going to play
soccer, and how would anybody know that if they didn't get into
those e-mails of that law firm.
Q.
talking about with Mr. Young?
A.
I believe that I heard that at that meeting.
Q.
Do you recall who was on the phone?
10
10:07:42
Now, did you learn this at that meeting that you were
In other words, who
was providing you -- well, let me stop and just ask it again.
Who was providing that information to you during that
11
12
meeting about the intrusion, or hack, into your office, MCAO,
13
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, and my law firm?
14
giving you that information?
15
A.
16
there on the phone --
17
Q.
Okay.
18
A.
-- not in person.
19
Q.
Did you bring up Judge Snow at that time?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Did you ask Detective Mackiewicz to investigate Judge Snow?
22
A.
No.
Who was
IEN
DS
I believe that the -- Detective Mackiewicz and Zullo were
23
Q.
Did you ask Mike Zullo to investigate Judge Snow?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Did either of those two gentlemen provide any information
FR
10:07:54
10:08:16
10:08:31
10:08:39
2518
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to you about Judge Snow on that phone call, that you recall?
A.
Q.
Do you know whether you had Exhibit 2074A while you were on
that phone call?
A.
No.
Q.
Well, let me ask you -- well, let me ask again:
telling me you don't think you had it or you don't recall
whether you had it?
A.
I don't recall if I had it in my hand or heard about it.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office computers possibly having been
12
hacked?
13
A.
Very concerned.
14
Q.
Were you concerned about the Maricopa County Attorney's
15
computers supposedly been hacked?
16
17
I don't believe I had.
Are you
During that meeting were you concerned about
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, leading.
THE COURT:
I'm going to allow it.
THE WITNESS:
18
10:09:07
10:09:49
Yes, I was concerned.
19
BY MR. MASTERSON:
20
Q.
21
firm's computers being hacked?
22
A.
DS
Were you concerned about your private attorneys', my law
10:10:05
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
well, did you think it was important to follow up on that, or
25
did you think this was all, what we've heard before, garbage or
FR
10:09:21
At that point, tell me -- tell me at that point what --
10:10:27
2519
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
junk?
Did you know at that time what you were dealing with
here?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you think it was important to follow up?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why?
A.
Well, I think when you have a -- two law enforcement
officials, their lines are tapped, if it was true, that's
important; and also government agencies infiltrated.

Q.
Did MCSO follow up on some of the information provided by
11
Dennis Montgomery with respect to the banking information or
12
the identity theft issues, do you know?
13
A.
I believe so.
14
Q.
Do you know what was done?
15
A.
I believe the chief deputy assigned some detectives to
16
follow up on it.
17
Q.
And do you know what those detectives found?
18
A.
I'm not sure all the details, but I believe they found some
19
evidence, some connection that somewhat verified the -- the
20
bank accounts.
21
Q.
22
did verify certain of the information that was provided them
DS
10
10:11:04
10:11:18
10:11:40
IEN
So are you telling me that the detectives who followed up
23
was accurate?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Could you look at Exhibit 2531, Sheriff, please.
FR
10:10:39
10:11:53
2520
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
2531?
Q.
Yes, sir.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you -- do you remember that document?
A.
I don't know -- remember reading it at the time, but --
Q.
Well, do you remember being told at some point that the
opinion was that Mr. Montgomery was a total fraud?
A.
Yes.
Q.
At that point did you agree with that, or did you still
Do you have it there, sir?
10
have concerns?
11
Mr. Montgomery and his investigation.
12
A.
13
possibility that something could be true.
14
may have a bad reputation, one day maybe give you -- give law
15
enforcement some credible information.
16
confidence in the -- in that informer.
17
Q.
18
last week, and I want to -- I want you to tell me a little bit
19
more about it.
20
come up with the best information."
Well, let me ask you this.
There's always that
Even though someone
But I didn't have much
10:13:38
You used an interesting phrase
What you said was "sometimes the worst guys
A.
10:13:57
Yes.
23
Q.
What do you mean by that?
24
A.
Well, if you're the worst guy you might have pretty good
25
information.
FR
10:13:12
Do you remember that?
IEN
22
Well, there's -- excuse me.
DS
21
Tell me your thought process at that time about
10:12:47
10:14:08
2521
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Were you at the DEA for a while?
A.
Twenty-eight years.
Q.
In your work with the DEA were you ever involved with
confidential informants?
A.
Yes.
Q.
A lot?
A.
Well, most of my career was in charge, but when I was a
working agent, yes.
Q.
10:14:20
A little?
Somewhere in the middle?
Well, here's my question.
And just, I guess, you can use
10
all of your law enforcement career, if you'd like.
11
about your DEA career at this point.
12
informants always upstanding citizens trying to do the right
13
thing and do justice for the world?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Are they sometimes nasty people trying to get out of a jam
16
themselves?
17
18
Objection, leading.
THE COURT:
Oh, I'm going to allow it.
21
Q.
22
explanation about your experience with confidential informants
DS
BY MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
in your very lengthy law enforcement career, and particularly
24
when you were with the DEA.
FR
10:15:16
Tell me about -- just give me a little
23
25
10:15:05
Yes, sir, they have other reasons.
20
Tell me.
10:14:46
But are confidential
MR. YOUNG:
THE WITNESS:
19
I'm talking
Tell me about what kind of people you're working with
10:15:34
2522
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
when you're working with confidential informants.
And I know
there's some good people out there, too, but tell us about all
of them.
A.
involved in that illicit activity.
Q.
Why are they the best informers?
A.
Because they have the information, they know who the bad
guys are, and you have to give them some credibility.
Q.
Do they always give you reliable information?
10
A.
Not always.
11
come through.
12
Q.
Do they sometimes lie to you?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Do they sometimes try to lead you on?
15
A.
My world, my experience, yes.
16
Q.
Do they sometimes try to get things from you in return for
17
information?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Now, the information that was coming to you from Dennis
20
Montgomery is coming -- well, is it coming from someone other
21
than Dennis Montgomery?
22
A.
In my experience, the best informers are those that are
DS
Sometimes you invest in them but they don't
10:16:09
10:16:24
10:16:58
IEN
That I know of, yeah.
23
Q.
You're -- well, my question --
24
A.
It's not coming from him; it's coming from, I believe, the
25
investigator.
FR
10:15:49
10:17:12
2523
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
And that's what I wanted to know.
You're not
talking one-on-one with Dennis Montgomery, are you?
A.
No.
Q.
Did Dennis Montgomery provide some banking information on
Maricopa County citizens that was relayed to you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was some of that banking information verified by your
detectives?
A.
I believe so.
10
Q.
Did Dennis Montgomery provide a document to you that had
11
your personal cell phone number on it?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
Montgomery that had your personal cell phone number on it?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Was that cell number accurate?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Did that same document have Chief Sheridan's cell phone
19
number on it?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Was that number accurate?
22
A.
Yes.
Did you receive a fax purportedly from Dennis
DS
IEN
10:17:35
He didn't -- nothing personally given me --
23
Q.
24
e-mail from your -- well, from my law firm that talked about a
25
soccer game on one of the lawyers in our law firm?
FR
10:17:24
10:17:56
10:18:04
Did you learn that Dennis Montgomery reported he had an
10:18:21
2524
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you ever investigate Judge Snow?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever tell Dennis Montgomery to investigate
Judge Snow?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever tell Mike Zullo or Detective Mackiewicz to
investigate Judge Snow?
A.
No.
10
Q.
When you received some information through Dennis
11
Montgomery about Judge Snow, what did you do?
12
A.
13
investigators:
14
recollection.
15
Q.
10:18:47
Well, if I recall, the chief deputy and I told the

You never investigate the judge.
That's my
I want to talk just briefly about IAs or PSB.
investigations or the Professional Standards Bureau of the
18
MCSO?
19
A.
No.
20
Q.
Why not?
21
A.
I have a policy of delegating that responsibility to the
22
chief deputy.
IEN
DS
17
23
Q.
24
investigation that involved Chief Sheridan.
FR
10:19:27
Are you actively involved in the internal
16
25
10:18:54
Okay.
10:19:50
Now, Mr. Young asked you some questions about an
Do you recall that?
10:20:17
2525
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you assign Chief Olson to deal with that investigation
that involved Chief Sheridan?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why?
A.
Well, one reason is I trusted Chief Olson, his ethics and
professionalism, and he did have a history of doing a good job
in another investigation.
side of our organization running the jails, so he could be more
10:20:30
Also, he was really on the other
10
objective.
He had nothing to do with the deputies and that
11
type situation.
12
Q.
13
when you said he was involved in another investigation.
14
A.
15
deputy and a captain and a civilian, I believe.
16
Q.
17
the former chief deputy?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Do you recall what decision he made with respect to the
20
former chief deputy?
21
A.
22
recommendations.
Tell me about the other investigation you're referring to
Well, we had some allegations against my former chief
10:21:16
DS
Did Chief Olson handle the investigation with respect to
10:21:38
IEN
Well, I believe that the captain, he made some

The chief deputy, I believe he may have, too.
23
Q.
Excuse me.
24
A.
Made some recommendation.
25
Q.
Do you recall what the recommendations were?
FR
10:20:59
May have, too, what?
10:21:57
2526
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Well, I'm not sure what he did make, because the chief
deputy serves at my pleasure anyway, so I didn't get too much
into all those details of that situation; it was handled by
another outside independent investigator.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I don't remember the name, but it came under the Pinal
County Sheriff's Office.
Q.
Office actually did the investigation, or did they farm it out
And do you know who that was?
Okay.
10:22:26
Do you know whether the Pinal County Sheriff's
10
to a private investigator?
11
A.
They farmed it out to a private investigator.
12
Q.
Do you recall the name of that private investigator?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Was it Keith Sobraske?
15
A.
That's right, yes.
16
Q.
What happened to the former chief deputy after the
17
investigation?
18
A.
Well, he resigned.
19
Q.
Now, Sheriff -- and I'm bouncing around a little, I
20
apologize.
21
Mr. Young used when he asked you questions.
10:22:56
DS
I'm pretty much trying to follow the order
23
preliminary injunction for just a little bit.
24
when you first got notice or learned about Judge Snow's
25
December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction?
FR
10:23:27
I want to talk about the December 23, 2011,
IEN
22
10:22:42
Do you recall
10:23:52
2527
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I believe that happened two, three days before Christmas.
I don't recall being notified.
the day after Christmas and got back to the office, I believe,
around January 3rd.
Q.
What did you do with respect to the preliminary injunction?
A.
Well, we delegated that to my subordinates to work with the
attorney, Casey.
Q.
attorney?
In fact, I was on an airplane
Did you say your subordinates were to work with the
10
A.
Casey, and those involved in the human smuggling.
11
Q.
Do you know what they -- do you know what they were
12
supposed to do with Mr. Casey?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Were you personally involved in any of the -- well, you sat
15
here and you heard evidence about the training scenarios that
16
Sergeant Palmer prepared and that Lieutenant Sousa was dealing
17
with back then.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Were you personally involved in that?
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Did you personally contact Sergeant Palmer or
22
Lieutenant Sousa about the training scenarios that were
10:24:59
Do you recall that testimony?
10:25:11
DS
IEN
10:24:41
Coordinate and get his advice, I presume.
23
discussed?
24
A.
I don't recall.
25
Q.
Did you have any involvement at all in trying to draft up
FR
10:24:18
I don't think so.

10:25:22
2528
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
training scenarios in an attempt to comply with the Court's
December 23, 2011 order?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever order Sergeant Palmer, Lieutenant Sousa, or
anyone else, not to finalize those training scenarios?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, Mr. Young just this morning asked you some questions
and read to you some snippets from your deposition about
conversations you had with Mr. Casey about turning people over
10
to the Border Patrol.
10:26:15
Do you recall those questions just maybe, I don't
11
12
know, half hour, an hour ago?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Did you have conversations with Mr. Casey about whether you
15
could turn suspects over to the Border Patrol if you did not
16
have reason to hold them on state criminal charges?
17
A.
18
use the Border Patrol to take those that are here illegally but
19
with no state charge.
20
since ICE was refusing to accept, like in the past.
21
recall, I didn't get a yes or no.
22
Q.
DS
And that would have been my alternative,

And if I
10:27:03
IEN
Could you take a look -- Mr. Young just had you look at
this so let's look at it again.
24
deposition.
FR
10:26:33
As I said, I may have talked to him about that, whether to
23
25
10:25:41
On page 644 of your April 2015
Do you have that up there, by chance?
Or maybe not.
10:27:30
THE COURT:
1
2
What deposition's that?
MR. MASTERSON:
April.
Oh, I'm sorry.
September.
THE WITNESS:
What page, Counsel?
screen before.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q.
me, I'm going to give it to you.

A.
It was on the
I may have it here if you give me a minute.

THE COURT:
Yes, I do.
MR. MASTERSON:
13
THE WITNESS:
14
10:28:05
Do you have the deposition there, Sheriff?
THE WITNESS:
12
Oh.
Beautiful.
What page?
15
BY MR. MASTERSON:
16
Q.
Could you look at page 644, please.
17
A.
I've got it.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
Mr. Young asked you the question:
10:28:27
I want you to take a look at the question at line 7,
DS
"Well, I understand that.
My question is:
Do you
remember any lawyer telling you that you could do that, that
22
is, take people to the Border Patrol after ICE was refusing
IEN
21
23
FR
10:29:14
that?"
24
25
10:27:52
Well, it's not going to be this time, but if the judge lets
11
20
April or
September?
10
2529
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Do you see that question?

10:29:28
2530
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
it, so I'm not going to make you read it again, but I want you
to read lines 24 and 25.
A.
problem with it."
Q.
turning people over to Border Patrol, is that accurate?
A.
To the best of my knowledge.
Q.
And your testimony you just told us is you don't recall him
10
Now, why don't you read on down -- and we just listened to
"I don't recall him either way.
I recall him not having a
10:29:48
So you recall having conversations with Mr. Casey about
having a problem with it?
11
12
10:30:18
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, leading.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
13
BY MR. MASTERSON:
14
Q.
Read your last answer again, please.
15
A.
"I don't recall him either way.
16
problem with it."
17
Q.
18
just asked you some questions about this one.
19
A.
I'm not even in the 2500s here yet.

Is it 2512?
Q.
Yes, sir.
22
A.
I got 31 here.
IEN
21
23
Q.
24
probably be for you maybe the fourth page in.
FR
25
10:30:25
Now, can you look at Exhibit 2512, and Mr. Young
DS
20
Okay.
I recall him not having a
10:31:41
Why don't you turn -- turn to the -- I think it will
The page I'm looking for has the heading "ACLU" on it.
10:32:13
2531
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, Mr. Young just asked you some questions about this
document.
thing for the first time, but did it come to your attention
that the ACLU wrote a letter to Mr. Casey where they said you
were violating the Court's preliminary injunction?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And is that what we're looking at here?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
In Exhibit 2512?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And your lawyer responded to that, correct?
And frankly, I don't really care when you saw this
10:32:41
And I want you to take a look at Exhibit 2514, please.
14
THE COURT:
15
Mr. Masterson, while the sheriff's looking
16
at that, I don't want to interrupt you except for in a
17
convenient spot, but it is 10:30.
18
MR. MASTERSON:
20
document and we can move right through.

All right.
23
(Recess taken.)
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
10:33:29
15 minutes we'll be back.
Thank you.
IEN
22
DS
don't we just take our break, and then the sheriff can find the
THE COURT:
10:33:15
I don't have much left, Judge, but why
19
21
10:32:24
Please be seated.
We ready to go, Judge?
10:50:25
THE COURT:
1
2
2532
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Masterson.
I'm ready.
MR. MASTERSON:
Thank you.
BY MR. MASTERSON:
Q.
break there you were looking for Exhibit 2514.
Okay, Sheriff.
And I think when we -- when we took the
Did you find that?
7
8
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you take it out.
Do you see Mr. Casey's letter to
10
Mr. Segura from the ACLU?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Can you turn to page 2 of that letter, please.
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
I want you to look at the second full paragraph on page 2.
15
It starts, "Three of these individuals."
10:51:19
10:51:38
Do you see that?
16
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Could you read that, please, and could you speak up a
19
little so everybody can hear you?
20
A.
21
criminal charges, but there was insufficient evidence to arrest
22
the other two persons on state criminal charges.
"Three of these individuals were booked on state
IEN
DS
Okay.
10:51:48
HSU contacted
23
ICE concerning these two individuals reasonably believed to
24
have illegally entered the United States.
25
would not take custody of the individuals but directed HSU to
FR
10:50:52
ICE advised that it

10:52:14
2533
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
conduct -- or contact the U.S. Border Patrol regarding federal
handling and custody of the two individuals.
contacted U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez at Ajo, Arizona,
who directed the MCSO to deliver these suspects to U.S. Border
Patrol at a specific meeting point.
violation of the Court's December 23, 2011 injunction."
Q.
18, 2012?
10
MR. YOUNG:
Objection, foundation.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
11
BY MR. MASTERSON:
12
Q.
THE COURT:
14
admitted.
15
it read.
10:53:08
For what it's worth, the exhibit is
I can read it.
I will read it.
You have just had
10:53:19
MR. MASTERSON:
16
You know what?
I think I'll move to
the next question.
THE COURT:
18
All right.
19
BY MR. MASTERSON:
20
Q.
21
September 27, 2012 Event.
DS
I want you to look down at the bottom of page 2 under the
10:53:27
IEN
Do you see that, Sheriff?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
I don't want you to read that whole paragraph.
25
to go down maybe one, two, three, four -- well, actually five
FR
10:52:46
Who's this letter from?
13
22
Accordingly, there is no
And that is what Mr. Casey is telling the ACLU on October
17
HSU immediately
I want you
10:53:41
2534
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
lines up.
Six lines up.
Do you see where it says:
"When ICE
declined to take custody"?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Could you read that, please.
A.
"When ICE declined to take custody of these individuals,
MCSO called the U.S. Border Patrol in Ajo."

Want me to continue?
7
8
Q.
Yes.
A.
"The U.S. Border Patrol supervisor Bonilla advised that it
10
would take custody of these two individuals, directed MCSO
11
deputies to deliver these individuals to Ajo, Arizona, and in
12
fact, took custody of these individuals.
13
of the Court's December 23rd, 2011 injunction."
14
Q.
And finally, can you look at page 3, please, Sheriff.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
You have it there?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And you look at the first paragraph?
19
raises a good point that it's in evidence and he can read it,
20
but I'd just like you to read the bottom part of that first
21
paragraph.
22
custody"?
10:54:43
And again, the judge
DS
IEN
10:54:17
There is no violation
10:54:53
Do you see where it starts "ICE declined to take
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Can you read that and the rest of that paragraph, please.
25
A.
"ICE declined to take custody of the passenger, and while
FR
10:53:56
10:55:06
2535
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the impounding of the truck was still in progress, MCSO
contacted the U.S. Border Patrol.
arrived to remove the impounded truck, the U.S. Border Patrol,
Agent McLellan, took custody of the passenger and volunteered
to send a transport vehicle or, in the alternative, directed
MCSO to deliver the passenger to a U.S. Border Patrol office.
There is no violation of the Court's December 23rd, 2011
injunction.
Q.
MR. YOUNG:
11
BY MR. MASTERSON:
12
Q.
13
there?
Who signed this letter?
MR. YOUNG:
14
15
BY MR. MASTERSON:
16
Q.
10:55:54
Who signed it down at the bottom
Same objection.
10:56:03
Whose name appears -THE COURT:
17
Kathleen, is this exhibit in evidence?
MR. MASTERSON:
18
Yeah.
Yes.
THE CLERK:
Sorry, Judge.
THE COURT:
Can you confirm that for me?
DS
19
21
MR. MASTERSON:
Which exhibit?
It's 2014.
Thank you.
23
THE CLERK:
Yes, it is.
24
THE COURT:
Okay.
25
I mean, I'm going to sustain the objection, but,
IEN
FR
10:56:09
2514.
THE COURT:
22
10:55:28
Who sent this letter to the ACLU?
10
20
Just as the tow truck
2514.
10:56:22
2536
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio - RDX Young, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
again, I think this is sort of raggling over stuff that is not
material.
sent this letter, and if this is the kind of stuff that we're
going to waste a bunch of time arguing about and not
stipulating to evidence over, I think that we are just wasting
everybody's time.
I don't think there's any question that Mr. Casey
So I'm going to sustain the objection.
Mr. Masterson,
you can ask the sheriff if you want all the questions about
whether or not he recognizes Mr. Casey's signature and
10
et cetera, but --
10:56:53
MR. MASTERSON:
11
THE COURT:
12
I'm not going to do that.
All right.
13
BY MR. MASTERSON:
14
Q.
15
Mr. Casey's letter that's Exhibit 2514, did you think it was a
16
violation of Judge Snow's preliminary injunction to turn these
17
folks over to the Border Patrol when ICE wouldn't take them?
18
A.
Sheriff, at the time of these events described in
No.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
21
MR. COMO:
23
THE COURT:
24
FR
25
Thank you, sir.
10:57:07
That's all I have.
The County has no questions, Your Honor.
10:57:33
I have no questions for the sheriff, Your
Honor.
IEN
22
MR. WALKER:
DS
20
10:56:38
BY MR. YOUNG:
Mr. Young.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
10:57:44
Q.
discussions with Mr. Casey.
about that set of discussions that you had with Mr. Casey.
Sheriff, Mr. Masterson asked you some questions about your

This is my turn to ask questions
Could we look at Exhibit 2535, which has been
4
5
2537
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
admitted.
10:58:19
And actually, if we could go down to the bottom, and
6
7
then the top of the next page as well, we can display all that
together so we see Mr. Casey's e-mail.
So do you see Mr. Casey's January 4, 2012 e-mail,
9
10
Sheriff?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Now, he says that you called him the night of January 3,
13
2012.
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
You have no reason to doubt that in fact, you did call
16
Mr. Casey that evening, correct?
17
A.
18
back from out of town.
19
Q.
20
preliminary injunction, correct?
21
A.
Well, I suggested it.
22
Q.
Well, you did not have a subordinate talk to Mr. Casey
10:59:03
Do you see that?
Probably the -- no, I don't doubt it.
I just probably got
IEN
DS
And you told him that you wanted to file an appeal of the
10:59:38
I don't tell my lawyers what to do.
23
about filing that appeal, you did that yourself, correct?
24
A.
I'm not sure; I may have.
25
Q.
And in fact, you may also have discussed with Mr. Casey
FR
10:59:13
11:00:00
2538
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
making a motion to stay or suspend the preliminary injunction
pending appeal, correct?
A.
handle.
Q.
deposition, on page 354, line 22, to 355, line 8.
I don't recall.
These are legal matters that the attorneys
Sheriff, I'm going to read to you a part of your
"Question:
Did you ever discuss with anyone the issue
of whether you should make a motion to stay or suspend the
injunction pending an appeal?

"Answer:
10
Once again, I don't remember.
He's the
11
lawyer, and he -- he was handling -- handling the legal aspects
12
of this."
Okay.
13
This is:
"Question:
Okay.
having any discussion about a stay or suspension of the -- of
15
the injunction pending appeal?

"Answer:
17
advice."
May have, but I was going on his legal
19
September 17?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Let's look at Exhibit --
DS
11:01:15
IEN
MR. MASTERSON:
Your Honor, under Rule 106, could we
23
have lines 9 through 16 read?
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. MASTERSON:
FR
11:01:03
Was that testimony accurate when you gave it on
18
22
11:00:46
You don't recall
14
16
11:00:23
9 through 16 is what, page 355?

Yes, Judge.
11:01:33
1
2
2539
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MR. YOUNG:
Sure.
I'm happy to read that.
"Question:
In the next paragraph Mr. Casey says,
quote, 'The sheriff called last night to share his anticipated
response to the DOJ today.
he wanted the notice of appeal on file even though the
injunctive relief is in actual practice relatively harmless to
MCSO field operations,' end quote.
During the call he indicated that
"Do you see that?
"Answer:
Yes."
Sheriff, let's look now at Exhibit 2511, if Mr. Klein
10
11
could put that up on the screen.
12
previously and it's an e-mail from Mr. Casey informing of the
13
Ninth Circuit's affirmance of the injunction.
11:02:06
This has been admitted
Sheriff, that e-mail was sent to Amy Lake.
14
Do you see
that?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And she is the person who receives e-mails on your behalf,
18
correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
When an e-mail is sent to Amy Lake, she makes sure that you
21
know that you've gotten it through her, correct?
22
A.
DS
15
11:02:32
11:02:37
IEN
Normally.
23
Q.
24
that under the preliminary injunction, you needed either to
25
arrest someone or release them, correct?
FR
11:01:49
Now, Sheriff, you would not deny that Mr. Casey told you
11:03:03
2540
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't recall if and when he said that.
He may have.
Q.
I'll play a part of your deposition, 348, line 17, to 349,
line 15, which is clip number 2.
"Question:
Just as a general matter, at any time, did
Mr. Casey tell you that under the Court's December 23, 2011,
injunction, you either had to arrest someone for a state law
crime or release them even if you thought that they were not
lawfully in the country?

"Answer:
10
You know, I don't recall specific -- that
11
specific remark.
12
preliminary injunction that came up.
13
time frame.
15
"Answer:
"Question:
17
18
I don't remember the
Do you think Mr. Casey may have told you
about that at some point in time?
16
11:04:31
Possible.
If he says that he told you that, would
you deny that?
"Answer:
19
Once again, I don't recall.
If he said it,
that's his statement if he said it to me personally.
21
don't recall if he said it or not.
DS
20
11:04:46
He could have."
23
BY MR. YOUNG:
24
Q.
Sheriff, was that testimony accurate?
25
A.
Yes.
FR
So I
IEN
22
11:04:09
Maybe through the course of the -- the
"Question:
14
11:03:47
11:05:00
2541
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Now, you'd agree with me that any advice that Mr. Casey
would have given you, anything he would have said or not said
to you would depend on what you had told him, correct?
would have to take into account what you told him in order to
decide whether he would say something to you or not, or if he
did say something, what he would say.
He
Do you agree with that?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
I'll sustain the objection.
10
BY MR. YOUNG:
11
Q.
12
for an attorney, in deciding what to tell a client, to take
13
into account what the client tells that attorney?
14
A.
15
you have conversations.
16
But I do leave it up to the legal people to do the legal work.
17
They have to make the decision whether to do it or not, not me.
18
Q.
19
depend, at least in part, on what you told him about what the
20
facts were?
21
A.
22
conversation, is that what you're asking me?
11:05:41
Sheriff, would you agree with me that it would be important
I'm not a lawyer, and, you know, when you deal with lawyers
Sometimes I may have a recommendation.
11:05:59
DS
Did you understand that Mr. Casey's advice to you would
IEN
Confusing.
11:06:20
Who told who?
Who started the -- the

I don't remember
23
who starts the conversation.
24
Q.
25
from the client in order to be able to decide what advice to
FR
11:05:20
Do you agree, Sheriff, that a lawyer has to get information

11:06:38
2542
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
give to the client?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
I'm going to overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS:
I would believe so, yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
releasing any illegal immigrants that you encountered because
the Obama Administration was letting them go anyway, correct?
A.
Could you repeat that?
10
Q.
You may have told Mr. Casey, and -- actually, you heard
11
Mr. Casey testify, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
would be releasing illegal immigrants because the Obama
15
Administration was letting them go, anyway?
16
A.
I may have said that, yeah.
17
Q.
You may also have told Mr. Casey that you would release
18
illegal immigrants that you did not have a state-law basis to
19
charge without taking them to ICE or the Border Patrol,
20
correct?
21
A.
I may have said that.
22
Q.
You may have said that to Mr. Casey, correct?
Now, you may have told Mr. Casey that you would be
DS
IEN
11:07:07
And did you hear him say that you told him that you
23
A.
24
but I could have said that.
25
Q.
FR
11:06:52
11:07:27
11:07:45
I don't remember my -- all my conversations with a lawyer,
You may also have said to Mr. Casey that if you thought
11:08:00
2543
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that someone was unlawfully present in the country but you had
no state law charge, you would release that person, correct?
A.
if that comment was made.
Q.
September 17 deposition from line 350 -- page 353, line 4, to
line 21.
I'm not sure if -- what circumstances we're talking about,
Sheriff, I'm going to play for you again from your
It's clip number 5.
"Question:
So those are three points in time that you
10
can refer to, but really I'm asking at this point about any
11
time.
12
that someone was unlawfully present in the country but you had
13
no state law charge that you could bring, that you would
14
release such a person?
"Question:
"Answer:
"Answer:
23
And you don't recall one way or the other
11:09:29
May have, but I don't recall."
24
BY MR. YOUNG:
25
Q.
FR
Okay.
whether you told him?
IEN
22
Well, he -- actually, Mr. Casey is saying
"Question:
DS
21
11:09:12
you told him that, that's just to be clear.
19
20
Once again, I may have said that, but I
don't recall the specific statement that you're saying he made.
17
18
11:08:52
Do you recall ever telling Mr. Casey that if you thought
"Answer:
15
16
11:08:27
Is that testimony accurate, Sheriff?
11:09:37
2544
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now going back to the letter, the exchange between
Mr. Segura and Mr. Casey that both Mr. Masterson and I have
asked you about, with respect to your backup plan, you have
that in mind?
plan"?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You admit that it's -- that you could have told Mr. Casey
that -- no, strike that.
Do you know what I mean when I say "backup
You admit that Mr. Casey could have told you that
10
11
under the injunction, if you were not going to arrest an
12
illegal immigrant, you had to release that illegal immigrant,
13
and that the injunction did not allow you to turn that
14
immigrant over to the federal authorities, is that correct?

MR. MASTERSON:
15
16
MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:
19
DS
THE COURT:
24
BY MR. YOUNG:
25
Q.
FR
again, but could you?
I'm sorry.
Compound, foundation.
11:10:49
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
23
Oh.
Authorities.
MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
22
11:10:38
"Authorities" is what I said.
MR. MASTERSON:
18
21
For one thing, was the
11:10:13
question turn him over to the federal courts?
17
20
Objection.
11:09:59
I hate to ask you to repeat the question
Well, Sheriff, why don't I just play your -- a portion of
11:11:01
2545
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
your deposition.
line 17.
17 --
It's from page 374, line 13, to page 376,
This is from your September
"Question:
Well, let's look at the next press
release, which is on MCAO00036.
press release.
United Construction Group in Glendale.
And feel free to read that
That's one that talks about a search warrant at
"Do you see that?
"Answer:
10
"Question:
11
Yes.
Okay.
11:11:42
And there your press release says
that you're concerned about Washington's new policy about not
13
arresting illegal aliens unless they meet certain criteria, and
14
at the bottom of that page, which is page MCAO00036, it says
15
that ICE refused to arrest two illegal aliens who were looking
16
for work while deputies were investigating the establishment,
17
quote, 'Arpaio refused to allow the suspected illegal aliens to
18
be released into the streets and ordered the deputies to
19
transport these two suspects to the United States Border
20
Patrol.'
23
11:12:28
"Answer:
"Question:
Yes.
Did you ever have any discussions with
24
Mr. Casey about whether that was allowed under the Court's
25
injunction?
FR
11:12:09
"Do you see that?
IEN
22
DS
12
21
11:11:23
11:12:41
"Answer:
2546
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I -- once again, if I can recall, we were
talking in general terms about the Border Patrol, and I believe
this pertains to the Border Patrol whether we can turn these
people over to the Border Patrol since ICE would not take them.
"Question:
Well, Mr. Casey says that he told you that
in that situation, if you were not going to arrest them, you
had to release them.

"Answer:
Did he ever tell you that?
I don't recall.
"Question:
Is it possible that he told you that?
"MR. MASTERSON:
10
"Answer:
11
Form; foundation.
11:13:21
It's possible.
"Question:
12
If Mr. Casey told you that if you couldn't
13
arrest someone, you had to release them and you could not turn
14
them over to the federal authorities, would you deny that he
15
told you that?
"Answer:
16
18
11:13:31
"Question:
17
that?
"Answer:
19
So it's possible that he did tell you
It's possible, but I don't recall if he did,
if that makes sense to you.
21
legal matters, and as I say, I'm not a lawyer.
22
understand sometimes what lawyers say in their legal terms."
IEN
DS
20
We're talking about lawyers and
23
(Deposition video clip concludes.)
24
MR. YOUNG:
FR
25
that.
11:13:00
11:13:41
I don't
Actually, there's a remaining part of
It goes on -- and I'm just going to read it if it's not
11:14:02
part of the clip.
Starts on page 376, line 2:
"Question:
2547
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
If Mr. Casey told you that you couldn't
arrest someone, you had to release them and you could not turn
them over to the federal authorities, would you deny that he
told you that?
"Answer:
"Question:
7
8
that?
"Answer:
11:14:24
So it's possible that he did tell you
It's possible, but I don't recall if he did,
10
if that makes sense to you.
11
legal matters, and as I say, I'm not a lawyer.
12
understand sometimes what lawyers say in their legal terms."
13
BY MR. YOUNG:
14
Q.
15
just on the video, but Sheriff -- which I think I just did,
16
sorry -- Sheriff, is that testimony that you've just heard
17
accurate?
18
A.
19
that we can turn them over to the Border Patrol in that
20
conversation you're asking me, so the lawyer did say it was
21
legal to turn these people over to the Border Patrol.
22
we're talking about the same situation.
I don't
11:14:54
DS
Yeah, but I'm still confused because the same lawyer said
11:15:15
And
So once again I'm a little confused if you're saying
24
one day the lawyer says you can, then he writes to the ACLU and
25
said it's legal to do it.
FR
11:14:41
And I apologize if I actually repeated something that was
IEN
23
We're talking about lawyers and
11:15:35
2548
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
I apologize, Sheriff, but I thought you testified just a
little bit earlier today that you never got such an affirmative
statement from Mr. Casey or any other lawyer, at least you
don't recall getting such an affirmative statement.
Is that testimony that you gave earlier today correct?
5
6
A.
That was about using the Border Patrol.
situation, when he wrote to the ACLU and said it was okay to
turn people over to the Border Patrol when there are no state
charges.
But this
10
Q.
Well, I'm -- you said that to the ACLU --
11
A.
He said that to the ACLU.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
hearing from Mr. Casey any affirmative statement, "Yes, you can
14
do that under the injunction," is that right?
15
A.
Nor did I hear him say "you cannot do."
16
Q.
Okay.
17
this morning, and I just want to clear up any ambiguity, in his
18
discussion with you, Mr. Casey never said, "You may do this
19
under the injunction," is that right?
20
A.
And I don't recall him saying "you cannot do it."
21
Q.
And you don't recall him saying that you can do it, is that
22
right?
11:16:08
But as to you, it's true that you don't recall
11:16:34
IEN
DS
But just to be clear, because I think you said this
23
A.
24
was okay to do it when he responded to the ACLU.
25
talking about the same three incidents.
FR
11:15:51
Correct.
11:16:48
But evidently we were right, because he said it

And we're
11:17:04
2549
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
And that letter that you were looking at with
Mr. Masterson, at least prior to September 16 of this year, you
had never heard of or seen that letter, correct?
A.
that far back.
Q.
couple days?
A.
and then looked at it again.
I don't recall.
I may have, but I -- I just can't remember
11:17:31
Did you see that letter for the first time in the last
I'm not saying it's the first time; I may have looked at it
10
Q.
11
last few days?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
You don't recall ever telling Mr. Casey that he was wrong,
14
or that you disagreed with him, when he told you that if you
15
were not going to arrest someone, you had to release them
16
without taking them to the federal authorities, is that
17
correct?
18
A.
19
coming across the border illegally when ICE, under a new
20
policy, determined not to respond.
21
My concern was:
DS
the desert to die?
That was a new policy.
What do you do?
11:18:12
11:18:37
Do you leave them in
Is there a connection between the illegal
23
immigrants connected with the Border Patrol?
24
warrants out if the Border Patrol says, "We'd like to have them
25
in a cooperative effort"?
FR
11:17:42
I may have had a discussion on what to do with the people
IEN
22
And the "again" that you just referred to, that was in the
Are there
That was my concern.
11:19:03
2550
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Well, Mr. Casey sent you an e-mail about the issue,
something in writing about the issue, What happens if your
office runs into illegal immigrants in the middle of the desert
who are going to die if you don't rescue them?

Do you recall that?
5
6
A.
some steps, and also if they volunteer to go back you can turn
them over.
Q.
Yes, I believe that in those circumstances, you can take
Let's look at Exhibit 2285, which has been admitted.
10
11
MR. YOUNG:
Judge, may we publish this?
THE COURT:
Yes.
12
BY MR. YOUNG:
13
Q.
Sheriff, you see Mr. Casey's e-mail dated June 3rd, 2014?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And that's your handwriting up at the top of the page,
16
right, forwarding it to a number of people?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
humanitarian actions to save or help save the lives of illegal
20
aliens?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Now, there's an underlined sentence in the third paragraph
DS
IEN
11:19:45
11:20:02
And you see Mr. Casey's e-mail talks about
23
that talks about "documenting plainly and clearly that each
24
illegal immigrant requested the transportation to a safe place
25
and did so on a voluntary basis."
FR
11:19:24
11:20:15
11:20:34
2551
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
You see that?
1
2
A.
Yes.
Q.
That's your underlining under the last part of that
sentence, correct?
A.
Could be.
Q.
That was your understanding of what Mr. Casey was advising
you as to that situation, of people being stuck in the desert
and needing help to save their lives, correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
I'm going to ask you again to listen to a part of your
11
deposition, Sheriff, starting on page 376, line 19, and going
12
to page 377, line 5.
11:20:44
13
"Question:
14
Did you ever tell Mr. Casey that he was
15
wrong or that you disagreed with him when he said that if you
16
couldn't arrest someone, you had to release them without taking
17
them to the federal authorities?"
MR. MASTERSON:
19
Objection, asked and answered.
Did we already not play this clip?
MR. YOUNG:
We have not played this clip.
THE COURT:
All right.
24
MR. YOUNG:
Could we start over again, Your Honor?
25
THE COURT:
Yeah.
IEN
22
DS
THE COURT:
21
FR
23
11:21:21
18
20
11:20:58
11:21:39
I'll allow this clip to be
played.
11:21:53
2552
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
"Question:
Did you ever tell Mr. Casey that he was
wrong or that you disagreed with him when he said that if you
couldn't arrest someone, you had to release them without taking
them to the federal authorities?

"Answer:
"Question:
7
8
11:22:08
Told his lawyer that he was wrong?

Told him that.
Did you ever tell
Mr. Casey --
"Answer:
"Question:
10
"Answer:
11
No.
-- that he was wrong?
I don't remember saying that."
12
13
BY MR. YOUNG:
14
Q.
Was that testimony accurate, Sheriff?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Now, you heard Mr. Casey testify that he did not see your
17
press releases or hear about your backup plan before receiving
18
the letter from the ACLU.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
Mr. Casey's testimony on that point, correct?
22
A.
11:22:25
Do you recall that he said that?
DS
And you don't have any reason to contradict or deny
11:22:36
IEN
No, I'm not sure whether he did receive them or that he
23
read them, or at least read the news medias that we were doing
24
this.
25
Q.
FR
11:22:15
Sheriff, I'm going to play another portion of your
11:22:55
2553
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
September 18 deposition, page 646, lines 4 through 22.
clip number 71.
It's
"Question:
Well, he says that he did not receive your
press releases before they were released.
true, do you have any basis for believing that he was okay with
what your press releases described that you were doing?

"Answer:
8
9
Well, I don't know.
not saying he reads the media.
Assuming that that's
Well, first of all, I'm
A lot of other people seem to
10
get information from the media, but I'm kind of convinced that
11
he knew we were doing it, I believe at least three times, but I
12
can't say for sure.
13
"Question:
your press releases until after receiving plaintiffs' letter
15
attaching them.
16
that?
"Answer:
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
11:24:06
I think the question's whether the sheriff
23
MR. YOUNG:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
MR. YOUNG:
FR
Foundation.
had any reason, so I'm going to allow it.
IEN
22
Form, foundation.
No."
DS
21
11:23:53
19
20
Do you have any reason to contradict or deny
"MR. MASTERSON:
18
11:23:38
Well, he says that he didn't know about
14
17
11:23:18
So -Whether he saw the press releases --
Actually, I want to finish playing the
11:24:23
clip.
And Mr. Klein, I don't know whether you need to back
2
3
up so that the whole thing can be heard.
Actually, does Mr. Masterson have objections to any
4
5
other portions of that segment, which is page 646, lines 4
through 22?
MR. MASTERSON:
all to your next question, which is:
questions."
MR. YOUNG:
10
transcript.
"I don't have any further
Actually, I don't know that that's in the
11:25:04
It's page 646, lines 4 through 22.
May we play the whole thing, Your Honor?
12
THE COURT:
13
Sure.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
15
16
We just played that.
THE COURT:
Did we just play that?
MR. YOUNG:
All right.
17
BY MR. YOUNG:
18
Q.
19
video accurate?
20
A.
21
yes.
22
Q.
All right.
11:25:18
Well, maybe we did, then.
Sheriff, was that testimony that we just saw on
DS
I probably forgot it, but I would -- if that's what I said,
11:25:29
IEN
Now, in your discussions with Mr. Casey about what the
23
office that you had needed to do on the preliminary injunction,
24
you talked back and forth with Mr. Casey about that issue,
25
correct?
FR
11:24:38
I really don't have any objection at
11
2554
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
11:25:54
2555
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Quite frankly, not often.
Q.
Well, it's possible you disagreed with him, correct?
fact, you did disagree with him.
A.
Which time?
Q.
At any time during the period that Mr. Casey was
representing you and talking to you about the preliminary
injunction, you had some discussions back and forth with him
and you had some disagreements with him, correct?
A.
In
I don't know about disagreements, maybe some legal matters
10
on what you can and can't do, you know?
11
Sometimes I don't agree with everything lawyers say, but you
12
have to follow what they do say, but you can be frustrated
13
sometimes.
14
Q.
Did you tell Mr. Casey that you would follow his advice?
15
A.
I don't remember telling a lawyer that I will follow the
16
advice.
17
Q.
18
follow his advice?
19
A.
No.
20
Q.
You heard Mr. Casey say that even after some of the back
21
and forth and disagreement, that you told him that you were
22
going to follow his advice?
He's the lawyer.
11:26:31
11:26:50
IEN
DS
Well, did you ever tell Mr. Casey you were not going to
11:27:02
23
A.
I may have.
24
Q.
Do you have any reason to deny or contradict Mr. Casey's
25
testimony on that issue?
FR
11:26:09
11:27:24
A.
No.
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you very much, Sheriff.

EXAMINATION
3
4
BY THE COURT:
Q.
clarify some things --
Sheriff, as you know, sometimes I ask some questions to
Oh, you can leave them in.
7
8
Unless you can hear me
I ask a few questions to clarify things that I may or
may not be sure about.
I'm going to do that here.
11:27:56
There are two people that report to you directly in
11
12
your office?
13
A.
One.
14
Q.
One.
15
A.
The chief deputy.
16
Q.
All right.
We have heard testimony --
17
A.
I'm sorry.
The public information officer, too.
18
Q.
All right.
So there are two people: the chief deputy and
19
the public information officer.
And who's that?
Does the chief deputy contact you at home sometimes,
21
or after hours?
22
A.
11:28:21
IEN
Once in a while, yes.
23
Q.
Does the public information officer?
24
A.
Once in a while.
25
Q.
What are the jobs of the public information officer?
FR
11:28:07
DS
20
11:27:40
pretty well, why don't you leave them in just to make sure.
9
10
2556
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio - X The Court, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
What
11:28:32
2557
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
are her duties?
A.
thing, getting back to the media, and supervising others.
Q.
Sheriff's Office?
A.
I believe we have someone else that does that.
Q.
Does that person report to her?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And does she let you know what's in the media about the
To run the public relations, press releases, that type of
Is it her job to track what is in the media about the
11:28:53
Sheriff's Office?
11
A.
Yes, and I get copies, too.
12
Q.
So she'll let you know what's published about the -- or
13
published or in the broadcast media about the Sheriff's Office,
14
and you'll get copies.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
She good at her job?
17
A.
Twenty-two years.
18
Q.
She's been good all twenty-two years?
19
A.
Well, you know how public relations people are.
20
Q.
Well, actually, I don't.
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
She keeps you informed of what's out there in the media
IEN
DS
10
11:29:02
11:29:13
Is she good at her job?
about you?
24
A.
She does, and the other subordinates that work for her.
25
Q.
I think you testified earlier, last April, that sometimes
FR
23
11:29:25
11:29:46
2558
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
she informs you about what's happening at HSU, too.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Why does she do that?
A.
Well, that's just another program that we have, and that's
been a very, should we say controversial, vocal type of program
that pertains to the whole country sometimes.
Q.
that HSU was an important program to you, is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
And did Ms. Allen know that?
11
A.
I'm sure she did.
12
Q.
And she's your public information officer?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And so she would keep you informed of any developments
15
regarding HSU, as well as the actual officers would keep you
16
informed.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Let me switch topics.
19
testified, you testified that there was an Internal Affairs
20
investigation about the orders given by Chief Deputy Sheridan
21
to Deputy Chief Trombi on May 14, 2014.
And I think we've had testimony from others, if not you,
11:30:40
DS
When you were here last April and
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Do you know whether there has been any result to that
25
Internal Affairs investigation?
FR
11:30:22
11:31:09
IEN
22
11:30:03
11:31:28
2559
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Is that on Chief Trombi?
Q.
No, that would be on Chief Deputy Sheridan.
A.
No.
Q.
Has there been any investigation where Chief Deputy
Sheridan was the target conducted by Internal Affairs for the
matters pertaining to the May 14, 2014 incident?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
Do you know what the result was?
A.
No.
10
Q.
Do you even know if there was an Internal Affairs
11
investigation?
12
A.
I know that there was, yes.
13
Q.
And was that a matter that was also handled by Chief Olson
14
in the end?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Chief Olson made the determination?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
You remember on April 23rd, which was in the April session,
19
one of the days on which you testified, can't remember whether
20
you testified two days then or not, but you did testify on
21
April 23rd, and it was when I asked you about what we've since
22
been calling the Montgomery investigation or the Seattle
DS
IEN
11:31:51
11:32:04
23
operation.
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And you remember that two or three times, I believe, I
FR
11:31:39
11:32:19
11:32:35
2560
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
directed you to preserve a number of documents, all electronic
communications, everything else that you had received from
Mr. Montgomery.
Do you remember me directing you to do that?
4
5
A.
Yes.
Q.
What did you do to implement my order?
A.
Well, I think I gave it to my personnel to implement the
order.
Q.
What did you do specifically, and to whom did you give it?
10
A.
I don't recall who I gave it to, but I'm sure we had the
11
people that were looking into that, specialized people.
12
Q.
Well, who were they, to the best of your recollection?
13
A.
I think it was Captain Farnsworth, Bill Knight, to get all
14
the information together.
15
Q.
And did you speak to Captain Farnsworth and to Bill Knight?
16
A.
On that issue?
17
Q.
Yes.
18
A.
I didn't get involved that much.
19
Q.
So who did you speak to about gathering that information?
20
A.
I may have talked to our lawyers or --
21
Q.
And who were your lawyers?
22
A.
I think Michele Iafrate.
IEN
DS
11:32:45
Q.
24
handled the collection of that information?
25
A.
FR
23
Uh-huh.
11:32:58
11:33:22
11:33:33
And so it would be your testimony that Ms. Iafrate
I believe she was involved, yes.
11:33:51
2561
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Well, I'm not asking if she's involved, and I don't want to
get into attorney-client privilege any more than I need to.
But I'm asking everybody that you told, that you issued any
instruction -- and I'm talking about you personally -- to
comply with my order that I gave you.

So I'm asking you again:
11:34:10
Who did you tell, other than
Ms. Iafrate, to comply with my order?
A.
that order, and it was delegated to people to get it done.
I don't know if it was -- I thought everybody knew about
10
don't remember me going writing memos and that type of thing to
11
get it carried out.
12
Q.
13
about that order to you?
14
A.
15
did.
16
Q.
17
recollection about where it would have been?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Do you have any recollection about what you might have
20
discussed?
21
A.
22
That was our main mission.
So you don't recall, say, talking to Chief Deputy Sheridan
I'm not sure that we had the conversation, but possibly we
11:34:48
DS
Well, if you had the conversation, do you have any
IEN
No.
11:34:55
Just trying to get the people to abide by your orders.
23
Q.
24
that you had approximately 50 hard drives that Montgomery had
25
sent you that he'd represented were his database from the CIA
FR
11:34:29
Now, you knew, at the time that I issued you that order,
11:35:11
2562
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
or wherever, correct?
A.
He didn't send me that.
Q.
Well, he sent to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you knew that they were in MCSO custody, correct?
A.
Way back there probably I did, I'm not sure.
Q.
Well, you've already testified that you knew about them
going and coming back from Washington, D.C., right?
I think the --
A.
That's correct.
11
Q.
And so you knew, or at least as far as you knew, the MCSO
12
still was in custody of those 50 hard drives.
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Did you have any discussion with anybody about turning over
15
those 50 hard drives, making sure those got disclosed to the
16
Court?
17
A.
I don't recall.
18
Q.
Did you have a discussion with Chief Sheridan on the night
19
of the 23rd about what to do about the 50 hard drives?
20
A.
I don't recall, Your Honor.
21
Q.
Do you think you may have had such a discussion?
22
A.
Possible, but I don't recall.
IEN
DS
10
Q.
24
delegated getting the 50 hard drives personally, other than
25
Ms. Iafrate?
FR
23
11:35:24
11:35:37
11:35:49
11:36:03
You don't recall anybody else to whom you may have
11:36:20
2563
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I believe that the -- the people working for me were
carrying out that order.
Q.
be really clear, and I want to make sure you understand, other
than the conversation that you say you may have had with Chief
Deputy Sheridan, but -- do you recall having any conversations
with anyone -- and by "you" I mean you personally -- do you
recall having any conversations with anyone about responding to
the order that I gave you in the April 23rd hearing?
Yeah, I understand.
I wasn't personally involved.
And so I'm asking you, and I want to
10
A.
The only way I can answer that, that I wanted that order to
11
be followed, carried out.
12
mentioned to anybody specific.
13
Q.
11:37:03
I don't recall who, if I ever
Well, I guess I want to refine that.
You in your mind wanted the order to be followed,
14
15
correct?
16
A.
That's for sure.
17
Q.
What did you do to communicate that to anyone?
18
A.
Well, I think they all knew that the order should be
19
carried out.
20
Q.
21
you just assumed that they knew that you wanted it carried out.
22
You're not sure you ever said anything to anyone about carrying
11:37:21
IEN
DS
And so I don't mean to be too pejorative about that, but
23
out that order.
24
A.
25
knew that the order and hoped that it would be carried out.
FR
11:36:39
I did not write any memos or that type of situation.
11:37:30
I
11:37:48
2564
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
But you don't recall having any discussion with anyone for
sure about that.
A.
That's right.
Q.
I want to make sure -- I'm hopping around again.
make sure that I understand the chronology of what you're
talking about with respect to that November 5th memo, which is
2074A, November 5th, 2013 memo that you -- that Montgomery
faxed to you.
I want to
Shortly after he faxed that to you, you had -- you met
9
10
with Chief Deputy Sheridan and you discussed the fact that you
11
were on -- you both indicated that you were -- had your wire,
12
that you'd been a subject of a wiretap, right?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
There was nothing else that struck you about that memo at
15
that time?
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
Subsequently, you had another meeting, and this one
18
involved Chief Deputy Sheridan, Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio.
19
And at that meeting, did you receive any new memos or any
20
updated version of the former memo you had received?
21
A.
22
Q.
May have, but you don't recall.
DS
IEN
11:38:26
11:38:43
23
A.
I don't think we did.
24
Q.
All right.
25
information offered, I gather.
FR
11:38:08
11:39:10
But at that meeting there was some new

And I don't want to put words
11:39:21
2565
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
in your mouth; I'm just trying to get a correct chronology.
if I say something that's wrong, correct me.
So
But at that subsequent meeting, somehow you were told
3
4
that not only were you wiretapped, not only was Chief Deputy
Sheridan wiretapped, but your offices were wiretapped, the
Maricopa County Attorney's Offices were wiretapped, and your
attorney's law firm, at least your attorney in what was then
the DOJ firm, which is now the same two attorneys you have
here, Mr. Masterson and Mr. Popolizio, were also wiretapped.
10
A.
I don't think, excuse me, it was wiretap.
I know that the
11
chief deputy and myself, because it said wiretap.
12
incidences were that they infiltrated the e-mails, especially
13
the --
14
Q.
I see.
15
A.
-- law firm.
16
Q.
Okay, so --
17
A.
-- a wiretap.
18
Q.
It wasn't a wiretap.
19
deputy.
20
your domains as it pertains to your computers and your Internet
21
connectivity and whatever would be on your computers, is that
22
correct?
It wasn't --
11:40:13
The wiretaps were you and the chief
And then your concern was that the DOJ had breached
DS
IEN
11:40:00
The other
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
They breached your computers, they breached Maricopa
25
County's computers, and they breached your law firm's
FR
11:39:41
11:40:29
11:40:41
2566
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
computers.
A.
Or e-mails or whatever.
Q.
Right.
done from cell phones or whatever, but they had breached the
electronic domains of those places.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you remember discussing with me in April that somehow
you heard that my domain was breached?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
When did you hear that my domain was breached?
11
A.
I'm not sure of the time frame, but when they were
12
reviewing -- or Montgomery was giving information from who was
13
in that, those bank situations, that your name, three, four
14
Snows came up.
15
Q.
16
Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Who else was present at that meeting?
19
talking about now where you first learned that -- well, maybe
20
I'm assuming too much.
11:40:57
And was this after this meeting that you had with
11:41:28
The meeting I'm
11:41:41
potential breach of your electronic information domain and
23
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli's electronic information domain and
24
the Maricopa County Attorney's Office electronic information
25
domain?
FR
11:41:04
Did you learn before the meeting that there had been a
IEN
22
I guess e-mails can be
DS
21
And I'm assuming e-mails.
11:42:04
2567
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
You know, I'm not sure the timing, but I think that
triggered -- triggered me to be concerned, and I believe the
detective, Mackiewicz and Zullo, were on the telephone.
Q.
may have told you previously that these domains had been
breached.
there.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And who else was there besides Zullo and Mackiewicz,
Okay.
So Zullo and Mackiewicz were on the telephone.
They
You called the meeting, had Popolizio and Masterson
10
Popolizio and Masterson, and you and Sheridan?
11
A.
I think Tim Casey was there.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
And probably Tom Liddy.
14
Q.
All right.
15
November 5th meeting that you had with Chief Deputy Sheridan,
16
did this meeting occur?
17
A.
I think that's the meeting we're talking about, the --
18
Q.
Well, do you remember first you testifying that you had a
19
meeting with just Chief Deputy Sheridan to discuss the November
20
5th memo when it came in?
21
out that there may have been a breach of domains and you had
22
another meeting in which you called in Mr. Popolizio,
DS
IEN
11:42:37
How long after the November 6th meeting, the
And then later you said you found
23
Mr. Masterson, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey, and Zullo and Mackiewicz
24
were on the phone?
25
A.
FR
11:42:23
I'm not sure that -- I may have discussed that with the
11:42:56
11:43:14
11:43:31
2568
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
chief deputy, and then we had the meeting when the information
came out that the wiretaps and all that other thing --
Q.
I understand that.
A.
-- wires.
Q.
I understand that.
chief deputy did you have that meeting?
A.
It may have been rather quickly.
Q.
May have been quickly?
A.
Yeah.
10
Q.
So that would have been at the same time that you were
11
sending, roughly -- and again, I'm not trying to put words in
12
your mouth, I'm just trying to get a chronology -- would have
13
been about the same time that you were sending Zullo from
14
Seattle to Southern California to talk to the photographer
15
gentleman who told you that your phones were being wiretapped?
16
A.
17
information about the wiretap, the next day other information
18
came out, I don't believe related to this, and sent Zullo down
19
here to talk to the people, see what the story was about.
20
Q.
21
just said.
22
A.
So how long after your meeting with the
I believe that happened the next day.
I'm not under -- I'm not sure I understood what you
11:44:13
11:44:38
Let me see if I can piece it back -- or go ahead.
IEN
The first information on the taping the telephone I believe
23
came out around November 5.
24
information came out that my wife's phone, home phone, was
25
being tapped.
FR
11:43:57
When I got
DS
Okay.
11:43:49
The next day, another -- other
11:45:01
2569
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
I got that.
And that's from this photographer phone call.
A.
Yes.
Q.
I got that.
your electronic information domain, Jones and Skelton's
electronic information domain, and the Maricopa County
Attorney's Office information domain had been breached?
you heard the information about somebody knowing about
Mr. Popolizio's daughter's soccer game.
And so back to back --
But then when did you get the information that
11:45:16
And
Was that all part of the same meeting?
9
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
When did you get that information?
12
A.
I'm not sure if it came out in that November 5 --
13
Q.
I think you've already testified that there wasn't anything
14
in the November 5 meeting.
15
words in your mouth.
16
A.
No, I mean the -- the form.
17
Q.
Well, there wasn't anything in the form that mentions any
18
of that stuff.
19
record, but it's not entered into evidence, a form that appears
20
to be an update of that which does mention that stuff, but it's
21
an updated memorandum.
22
A.
11:45:28
And again, I don't want to put
DS
I will tell you that there appears to be in the
11:45:53
IEN
I think that the -- the --
23
Q.
Let me ask --
24
A.
November 5th --
25
Q.
-- maybe it'll make sense.
FR
11:45:42
11:46:01
2570
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
-- from November 5th mentioned the tapes.
Q.
It did men -- November 5th mentioned the tapes, but it did
not mention the penetration of domains.
A.
That's correct, not in that form, yes.
Q.
When did you find out about the penetration of the domains?
A.
I think verbally from one of the investigators that --
Q.
Yeah, but when in relation to that November 5th meeting?
A.
That would be pretty close.
Q.
Pretty close, but probably after.
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Let me ask you --
11:46:34
And gentlemen, I'm just going to show him document
12
13
number 7 in Exhibit 2082.
14
15
THE CLERK:
Which exhibit?
THE COURT:
It's Exhibit 2082, and 2082 is divided up
16
into documents.
17
document number 7.
18
BY THE COURT:
19
Q.
20
document, correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And it shows down at the bottom a revision, 2.3.
11:46:48
And I just want the sheriff to look at
If you need a minute, take it, but it's a six-page
11:47:13
DS
IEN
23
Do you see that it's a Revision 2.3 on the bottom?
24
A.
It would be what page, Your Honor?
25
Q.
All of the pages.
FR
11:46:17
If you look down at the bottom right,
11:47:27
2571
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
they all show that it's a Revision 2.3.
Down at the bottom, do
you see that?
A.
2.3.
Q.
Sheriff, if you look, that is divided up into a number of
documents.
have to look at the other documents.
A.
All right.
Q.
Uh-huh.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Do you see the document I'm talking about now?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And you see that it has the same title as the document you
13
received on November 5th, which is "DOJ/Arpaio Timeline" at the
14
top?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
But it has Revision 2.3 down in the bottom right-hand
17
corner?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And does the document on the first page seem to be
20
essentially the same information that was faxed to you on
21
November 5th?
22
A.
I want you to look at document number 7.
You don't
DS
Thank you.
11:48:00
11:48:15
11:48:23
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
example, for 10-15-2009 and 8-15-2010, it doesn't have on the
25
document you received November 5th, it doesn't have those
FR
11:47:51
But it doesn't have -- if you look at the entry, for
11:48:48
2572
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
entries that your domains were breached, or that Jones, Skelton
& Hochuli's domains were breached, or that the Maricopa County
Attorney's domains were breached, right?
A.
No.
Q.
So this appears to be an addition to that time line,
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you ever remember seeing this document?
A.
The one that I am reading now?
10
Q.
Yeah.
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
some of the other things that you've said that, you know,
14
135,000 residents in Maricopa County had information harvested,
15
and 462,000 residents of the state of Arizona.
16
remember seeing that number or that figure?
17
A.
No.
18
Q.
Do you see that that is information that had been harvested
19
supposedly between 2001 and 2008, up at the top?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And then if you turn the next page, do you see the
22
references to Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson and somebody's
FR
And you see on the third page that it talks about
Do you ever
11:49:24
11:49:40
daughter's soccer game and softball game?
24
25
11:49:12
DS
IEN
23
11:49:02
A.
Yes.
Do you see that?

11:49:54
2573
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You don't think that you may have received this document in
conjunction with your meeting with Mr. Popolizio and
Mr. Masterson?
A.
You mean the document I'm reading?
Q.
Yeah.
A.
No.
Q.
Okay.
A.
No.
Q.
But that was, as best you recall, regardless of whether or
11:50:05
10
not you received this document, that was the information that
11
essentially you received in that meeting that you had when you
12
discussed this matter with Mr. Masterson, Mr. Popolizio,
13
Mr. Casey, and Chief Deputy Sheridan, with Mr. Mackiewicz and
14
Mr. Zullo on the line?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
So this is sort of an increase in the information that
17
you'd received from November 5th.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And you received that several days later.
20
close in time, I think you've said.
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
You then testified, I think, that you had a meeting -- and
11:50:26
IEN
DS
But still fairly
23
again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if you
24
didn't say this, correct me -- but you said you had another
25
meeting in which you saw -- which you had reviewed the
FR
11:50:11
11:50:35
11:50:49
2574
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
schematic that is in 2072.
You remember the schematic thing
that has the Department of Justice at the center and all the
lines going out?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you had that in another meeting that you had
approximately around New Year's Day, is that correct?
A.
I don't know what -- that flowchart or whatever?
Q.
Right.
10
A.
Yeah.
11
Q.
If you look at 2072, the last three pages of 2072 are
12
various iterations of that flowchart.
13
there, Exhibit 2072.
I don't know the time frame.
Are you talking about the --
11:51:21
2072.
14
A.
I got document 2.
16
Q.
Do you have Exhibit 2072, Sheriff?
17
A.
I have 2082.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Okay.
20
Q.
And then see if you can find 2072.
21
A.
Response here?
22
Q.
Yeah.
FR
25
11:51:55
Close 2082.
DS
IEN
24
I think you have 2072
If you can find 2072.
15
23
11:51:04
11:52:05
Or if you can bring 2072, the last three pages, up
on the computer screen, if that would save us some time.

Okay.
that exhibit.
If you could turn to the last three pages of

11:52:39
2575
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Well, before we leave this document, which is the
1
2
first page of the exhibit, do you remember seeing a time line
in that subsequent meeting that you had where you had the
schematic?
A.
I believe I did.
Q.
All right.
went with the time line, or at least one schematic that went
with the time line?
A.
Is that the round --
10
Q.
Yes.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
All right.
13
three pages of this exhibit.
11:52:54
And then there were several schematics that
11:53:06
Now, if you'll turn to one of the -- the last
MR. MASTERSON:
14
15
Do you remember seeing a time line like this?
Is that what it looked like?
Judge, excuse me.
Could I ask a
question?
11:53:15
THE COURT:
16
Sure.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
On the previous page is the
18
highlighting we're seeing, is that highlighting done by the
19
monitor, do we know?
21
23
24
FR
25
I do not know, but it's possible that it
11:53:21
is.
MR. MASTERSON:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you.
And I will find out the answer to that
question and tell you.

MR. MASTERSON:
Thank you.
11:53:26
THE COURT:
2576
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Okay.
BY THE COURT:
Q.
Did the schematic look like this?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
after the meeting with Mr. Popolizio -- the first meeting we've
discussed with Mr. Popolizio and Mr. Masterson, where you had
this -- had a time line and this accompanying schematic or
something like it present, correct?
And then you had a meeting -- you had a meeting
10
A.
I don't recall that second meeting that could have happened
11
regarding this time line.
12
Q.
All right.
13
A.
This one.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
But I know it was brought to a -- to my attention.
16
Q.
And when was it brought to your attention?
17
A.
I believe it was probably early part of 2014.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Did you have any meetings with anybody in which you
21
discussed this schematic and/or the time line, that you can
22
recall?
DS
IEN
11:53:51
11:54:02
And did you look at the time line and the schematic?
23
A.
I think the chief deputy and I looked at this --
24
Q.
Um-hum.
25
A.
-- and didn't give much credence to it.
FR
11:53:33
And I think that's
11:54:23
11:54:42
2577
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the time that we ordered the investigators that you don't get
involved in anything to do with the judge.
We weren't going to get involved in that.
Q.
schematic that it involved this Court.
A.
It was on it.
Q.
Yeah.
A.
Not that I believed it, but...
Q.
But you realized when you looked at these documents that
That was an order.
So you realized when you saw the time line and the
Your name was in it.
10
they involved this Court.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And then you shared those documents with the chief deputy.
13
A.
We talked about it.
14
Q.
And did he have copies of these documents?
15
A.
I don't know if he had copies.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
deputy.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And you talked about the fact that the documents seemed to
20
implicate me in the -- or this Court in the overall scheme of
21
the Department of Justice involving wiretaps and
22
communications.
DS
IEN
11:55:14
11:55:23
But you talked about these documents with the chief
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And then -- well, tell me what you can recall about that
25
conversation.
FR
11:55:02
Where did it occur?
11:55:36
11:55:49
2578
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm not sure if it was at my office, his office.
Could
have been my office when we saw this.
Q.
And what did you say, to the best of your recollection?
A.
Well, first of all, it was very difficult to believe the
credibility of the source, and we were very adamant that we're
not going to believe this document, and that there will be no
investigation of the judge, period.
Q.
one that authorized the wiretap on your cell phone?
Did you notice that on this document it says that I was the
10
A.
11
it was there.
12
Q.
13
saying.
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And did you share that with the chief deputy?
16
A.
I'm not sure whether he saw it.
17
But I breezed through it, I didn't go through the whole thing.
18
I still was a little concerned about the wiretaps and
19
infiltrating these government agencies.
20
we ordered our people you -- if your name came up anywhere,
21
there will be no investigation.
22
Q.
Another bizarre situation which I could never believe, but
DS
All right.
All right.
IEN
23
FR
11:56:38
And you saw it, and realized that's what it was
11:56:49
I'm sure he looked at it.
But when we saw that,
11:57:10
We're still back in the conversation you had
with the chief deputy when you discussed this.
24
25
11:56:15
A.
What do you remember saying to the chief deputy?
Well, I was very -- being a federal guy all these years, I
11:57:26
2579
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
was shocked, and I didn't give much credibility to the source.
Q.
And you said that to the chief deputy?
A.
I'm not sure what our conversation was, but it had to be in
that line, because we wanted to make sure --
Q.
Do you recall what he said to you?
A.
No.
Q.
And then you said you instructed your people.
I think he was surprised, too, with this information.
Who did you personally instruct?
8
9
A.
I think the chief deputy notified the -- the two
10
investigators.
11
Q.
12
the chief deputy instructed your two investigators.
13
A.
I believe he did, yes.
14
Q.
Now, mostly those investigators spoke with you directly,
15
correct?
16
A.
On occasion.
17
Q.
And the chief deputy wasn't always involved in those
18
discussions.
19
A.
That's correct.
20
Q.
Did you ever yourself instruct those investigators not to
21
do any further investigation regarding this Court?
22
A.
11:58:08
And so you didn't personally instruct anybody, but
11:58:19
DS
Okay.
11:58:26
IEN
I think I reconfirmed or reiterated that, yes.
23
Q.
24
them?
25
A.
FR
11:57:51
And when did you -- when did you have that discussion with
I believe after this came out.
I don't know the
11:58:48
2580
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
time frame.
Q.
of anyone that had ever investigated me in connection with the
newspaper article and you indicated no, didn't you?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You were aware, though, that Mr. Montgomery was
investigat- -- had investigated me, even if you don't believe
that you investigated me, you were aware that Mr. Montgomery
had investigated me, weren't you?
10
A.
Now, when you were here in April, I did ask you if you knew
No.
11:59:03
11:59:14
MR. MASTERSON:
11
THE WITNESS:
12
I don't think there was any
13
investigation.
He just came up with a flowchart.
14
that an investigation.
15
BY THE COURT:
16
Q.
17
you?
18
A.
The flowchart?
19
Q.
Yes.
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Did anybody explain the time line to you?
22
A.
I don't call
We didn't investigate it.
11:59:27
When you received this flowchart, did anybody explain it to
IEN
DS
11:59:34
Q.
Who gave it to you?
24
A.
That's a good question.
25
through the documents, but I believe that's the first time I
FR
23
I'm not sure whether it came up

11:59:44
2581
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
saw that, around the first of the year.
Q.
Did you ever see it again?
A.
After?
Q.
Yes.
A.
It was in the file.
Q.
What?
A.
It's in the file.
Q.
So it stayed in the file.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Several iterations of it stayed in the file.
12:00:00
So did you ever look at those documents again?
11
12
A.
13
hearing, I guess.
14
Q.
When was the next time you saw this document?
15
A.
I don't recall.
16
Q.
Was it after I raised the matter with you last May that you
17
saw this document again for the first time?
18
sometime between then -- between the first of 2014 and when I
19
raised the matter with you again?
20
A.
21
order out.
22
Q.
No, until the -- the -- dealt with my attorneys for this
DS
No, I believe we saw it 2014.
IEN
Yes.
12:00:23
Or did you see it
That's when we gave the
12:00:42
Did you see it any time between then and your
23
testimony in the contempt hearing?
24
A.
I'm not sure.
25
Q.
Did you see it any time between the contempt hearing and
FR
12:00:06
12:00:56
2582
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
when I raised the matter in May of 2014?
A.
I don't believe I was looking at that flowchart.
Q.
Did you ever discuss it with anyone?
A.
I think the only one is the chief deputy when he saw it,
and maybe with the investigators, telling them not to do
anything with it.
Q.
to investigate this Court, did you ever discuss it again with
anyone?
After you instructed the investigators not to do anything
10
A.
I don't recall.
11
Q.
You have no recollection one way or the other.
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
You may have discussed it with somebody, you just can't
14
remember.
15
A.
16
don't recall.
17
Q.
Did you ever discuss it with the investigators?
18
A.
I think I mentioned after that we told them not to get
19
involved.
20
Q.
Yes, thank you for clarifying.

Who did you tell not to get involved?
23
A.
24
both, I don't recall.
25
Q.
FR
12:01:46
12:01:57
You personally,
who did you tell?
IEN
22
12:01:40
I don't know who I would have discussed it with, but I
DS
21
12:01:25
It may have been Zullo; it may have been Mackiewicz or
You don't recall either one for sure.
12:02:09
2583
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Could have been either one.
I reiterated that you don't
get involved in any investigation pertaining to the judge.
Q.
you, but you're not sure whether you had such a conversation
with either one of them.
A.
I'm pretty sure that I did.
Q.
But you don't recall with which one of them it was.
A.
It could have been both.
Q.
Could have been both; could have been one or the other;
I'm sorry, I don't want to be -- seem like I'm bothering
12:02:28
10
you're not sure, you don't recall.
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Did you ever have any discussions with this -- with
13
Sergeant Anglin regarding this investigation of this flowchart,
14
or any of this material?
15
A.
16
not, or the time line, but I think the instructions were out
17
there that you don't investigate the judge.
18
knew that.
19
Q.
20
instruction to the investigators of ever discussing this matter
21
with them again?
22
A.
12:02:40
You know, I don't recall whether that was brought up or
I think everybody
DS
Do you have any recollection after you may have issued such
12:03:13
IEN
I don't recall.
23
Q.
You were here for Chief Deputy Sheridan's testimony?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Do you remember him mentioning something about Mr. Liddy
FR
12:02:54
12:03:26
2584
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
talking about an operation called "the hammer"?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When did you first hear about the hammer?
A.
I think that was at that meeting that we initially had with
all the attorneys.
Q.
discussed Mr. Popolizio's --
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- daughter?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
You discussed the hammer at that meeting?
12
A.
Mr. Liddy, I think, brought that up.
13
Q.
Did you ever discuss the hammer again with anyone?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
You've indicated in your testimony that you continued to
16
investigate and have your investigators investigate the
17
wiretaps on your phone, correct?
18
A.
19
which probably signifies a wiretap, and the main thing to the
20
test the credibility of the informer, which we were losing
21
confidence in him.
22
could get the audio of the tape.
When you say "that meeting," you mean the meeting where you
12:03:49
DS
12:04:26
But I think he came up and said that he
Now, I'm not a technical guy.
So it was almost like
24
"put up or shut up" if you're saying our wire -- our phones
25
have been taped -- or tapped.
FR
12:03:59
Well, I was concerned because of the numbers next to it,
IEN
23
12:03:44
12:04:45
2585
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did he ever give you the audio of the tape?
A.
No.
Q.
You recall testifying that you authorized your folks to go
and speak with a FISA Court judge in Washington, D.C., about
the wiretap?
A.
discussed there.
Q.
Do you remember when that discussion took place?
A.
No, I don't have the -- probably in 2014.
10
Q.
And do you remember them reporting back to you that the
11
FISA Court judge said it looked like the wiretap numbers were
12
authentic wiretap numbers used in Department of Justice
13
investigations, or something to that effect?
14
A.
15
looked at it he kind of gave an indication, but I don't think
16
he ever said it was or was not.
17
Q.
18
have had access to the judge through Mr. Klayman, is that
19
correct?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Was Mr. Klayman your attorney at that time?
22
A.
He wasn't -- I'm not sure.
Well, they -- I don't know all the facts of what they
12:05:16
All I recall, the judge didn't say either way, but when he
12:05:35
IEN
DS
And I think you indicated that you thought the folks may
23
against the president?
24
Q.
Yes.
25
A.
Is that the time?
FR
12:04:58
12:05:51
At the time of the lawsuit
I'm not sure that happened before or
12:06:12
2586
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
after.
Q.
against the president, correct?
A.
On the immigration situation.
Q.
Correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And he's filed an amicus brief, I think, in a matter in
Texas also on your behalf, is that correct?
A.
I believe he did.
10
Q.
And you don't recall whether he was your lawyer at the time
11
that your investigators would have met with the judge from the
12
FISA Court?
13
A.
I don't recall the time.
14
Q.
Do you recall whether he was Mr. Montgomery's lawyer at
15
that point?
16
A.
17
attorney, whether he came in after or what.
18
Q.
19
with Mr. Klayman when they were trying to find out whether
20
Mr. Montgomery was credible, because Mr. Klayman was
21
representing himself to be Mr. Montgomery's attorney?
22
A.
So Mr. Klayman has been representing you in a lawsuit
12:06:34
12:06:55
I don't know if he was the attorney at that time, his
DS
Were you ever aware that your investigators were dealing
12:07:13
IEN
Whether they were talking to Klayman --
23
Q.
Yes.
24
A.
-- to see if this guy was credible?
25
Q.
Yes.
FR
12:06:25
12:07:28
2587
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
They may have.
Q.
Is Mr. Klayman still your attorney?
A.
He's only my attorney on the -- the lawsuit which is now
going up to the Supreme Court, I believe.
Q.
represents Mr. Montgomery?
A.
You are aware, at least now, that Mr. Klayman also
Yes.
THE COURT:
Thank you very much, Sheriff.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
10
Thank you, sir.
Follow-up?
MR. MASTERSON:
11
12
13
Mr. Masterson?
THE COURT:
Mr. Young?
MR. YOUNG:
I have no further questions, Your Honor,
but I do have a question about whether Exhibit 2082 should be
15
admitted, based on the sheriff's testimony.

THE COURT:
12:08:30
Well, the sheriff testified he'd never
seen the document.
18
seemed to be -- seemed to sort of match his chronology that he
19
was giving me.
So I showed him the document.
He said he'd
20
never seen it.
I think it's been identified.
For the record,
21
it's document number 7 in Exhibit 2082, but I don't think there
22
is a basis to admit the document.
IEN
DS
17
I just thought he might have, because it
23
MR. YOUNG:
24
THE COURT:
All right.
25
15, so let's be back at 1:25.
FR
12:08:04
No questions.
14
16
12:07:51
12:08:44
Well, we will have an hour and
Thank you very much.
12:08:57
2588
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
(Lunch recess taken.)
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Please be seated.
If you'll give me one second, please.
MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
13:30:08
Your Honor, plaintiffs call Joseph Sousa.

Mr. Sousa, even though we have allowed
some people to testify as they're still under oath, since it
was clear to last April, I'm going to have you re-sworn.
10
right?
testified in this same hearing.
13
14
15
THE CLERK:
Please state and spell your first and last
13:30:35
Joseph, J-o-s-e-p-h; Sousa, S-o-u-s-a.
(Joseph Sousa is duly sworn as a witness.)

THE CLERK:
18
MS. WANG:
19
DS
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS:
17
21
MR. SOUSA:
name for the record.
16
20
13:30:24
I do remember, however, that you have previously
11
12
Thank you.
Please take our witness stand.
Your Honor, may I proceed?

Please.
JOSEPH SOUSA,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
24
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
FR
13:31:17
Thank you.
23
25
All
13:31:18
2589
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sousa - DX Wang, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
DIRECT EXAMINATION
1
2
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Good afternoon, Lieutenant Sousa.
A.
Good afternoon, ma'am.
Q.
Sir, back in April you testified that you believed your
chain of command was responsible for violations of the Court's
preliminary injunction order, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And in the past year you have been a principal in a
number of Internal Affairs investigations relating to matters
11
at issue in this litigation, correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And in those Internal Affairs investigations you told the
14
investigators that you believed the chain of command was
15
responsible for violations of MCSO policy, correct?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
And you also told them that you believed Sheriff Arpaio and
18
Chief Sands drove the Human Smuggling Unit to do various
19
operations involving a large number of arrests of undocumented
20
immigrants, correct?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
Sir, have you ever heard Sheriff Arpaio expressing a
IEN
DS
10
negative attitude towards this Court?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
Did one of those incidents occur during a memorial for
FR
23
13:31:22
13:31:37
13:31:51
13:32:12
13:32:25
2590
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
fallen officers?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Was that in about April or May of 2014?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Can you please describe that incident?
A.
The sheriff was point -- headquarters is just south of
here, and the sheriff was pointing at this building and was
making some statements to the fact:
right now.
All right.
I betcha he's watching me
10
Q.
11
you heard the sheriff say that "that guy is out to get me," or
12
words to that effect, is that correct?
13
A.
Words to that effect.
14
Q.
All right.
15
correct?
16
A.
That's my assumption, ma'am.
17
Q.
During that same memorial for fallen officers, did you hear
18
Chief Deputy Sheridan say anything about the Court's orders?
19
A.
20
Sheridan, I can't remember what he was saying, but I mentioned,
21
Hey, let's just get in compliance with the 2013 order and
22
everything the judge wanted us to do.
I believe you previously have testified that
13:32:51
And he was referring to this Court, is that
13:33:04
IEN
DS
I believe that conversation I initiated with Chief
reply was more of frustration of, How am I going to get all
24
this done?
25
Q.
Okay.
13:33:23
And Chief Sheridan's
23
FR
13:32:35
That type of thing.

13:33:39
2591
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
More of an overwhelming frustration type.
Q.
All right.
this year, you testified under oath that Chief Deputy Sheridan
said to you:
here.
A.
Correct, he said something to that effect.
Q.
Okay.
not believe -- withdrawn.
During your deposition on September 17th of
This isn't going to happen in my career while I'm
Was that your testimony?
13:33:57
And you took that to mean that Chief Sheridan did
You took that to mean that Chief Sheridan thought it
9
10
would take a very long time to get into compliance with the
11
Court's orders?
12
A.
13
overwhelming, How am I going to get this done?
14
but How do I get this all done?
15
Q.
16
sentence, did you?
17
A.
No, I did not.
18
Q.
You just told him, Let's do what we need to and get it over
19
with?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
And he shook his head at that, is that right?
22
A.
Yeah, he was extremely frustrated.
Yeah.
Is that your testimony?
I thought his body language was more of an
Not a defiant,
But you did not ask him to confirm what he meant by that
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
All right.
13:34:23
13:34:31
DS
IEN
23
FR
13:34:09
And he shook his head, correct?
Now, you've testified in your depositions since
13:34:42
2592
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
April that your chain of command ordered HSU to take actions
that you disagreed with while you were the commander of HSU, is
that correct?
A.
remember --
Q.
Sure.
A.
-- that question, ma'am.
Q.
Well, on one occasion you mentioned that HSU was engaged in
an investigation known as Operation Wile E. Coyote, correct?
You got something to refresh my memory?
I don't
13:34:54
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
That was an investigation into drop houses, correct?
12
A.
A string of drop houses, yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And you were trying to take down smugglers, is that right?
14
A.
Ringleaders, yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
And you testified, I believe, in your depositions, that
16
your chain of command told you to bring that investigation to a
17
premature close, is that right?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
Because they felt that that operation did not generate the
20
same high level of arrests of undocumented immigrants as some
21
of the other operations they wanted, correct?
22
A.
DS
10
13:35:20
13:35:35
IEN
That was my assumption, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
the kinds of operations that would generate a high number of
25
arrests, correct?
FR
13:35:11
I see.
And they did, in fact, order HSU to continue doing
13:35:50
2593
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I was told to go back to normal business.
Q.
And normal business meant the saturation patrols, is that
right?
A.
Interdiction of human smuggling loads.
Q.
And in those operations, many of the arrestees were simply
turned over to ICE, correct?
A.
In the human smuggling operations, some of them were.
Q.
All right.
return to generated a much higher number of arrests than
And those operations that you were asked to
10
Operation Wile E. Coyote, correct?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
All right.
13
testimony that another action that you were ordered to take was
14
to surreptitiously record ICE agents, is that correct?
15
A.
Could we get a time frame?
16
Q.
Do you recall that testimony, sir?
18
Objection, Your Honor.
13:36:40
I'd like a
time frame.
THE COURT:
19
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
DS
20
13:36:24
You also mentioned in some of your previous
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
IEN
All right.
Yes, ma'am.
13:36:48
And is that something you were ordered to do?
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And was that in service of obtaining media attention for
25
the fact that ICE was refusing to answer calls from MCSO about
FR
13:36:04
13:36:59
2594
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
undocumented immigrants?
A.
That's my assumption.
Q.
Now, you associate those kinds of orders that you received
from your chain of command with something that you called the
sheriff's political rhetoric, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
You also made observations -- withdrawn.
During the IA investigations in which you were a
8
9
principal over the past year, you made observations to the
10
investigators about Chief Sands's attitude toward HSU, correct?
11
A.
In general, yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
All right.
13
I thought Sands was flying by the seat of his pants trying to
14
appease and do what the sheriff wanted?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am, that's my opinion.
16
Q.
And it's your opinion sitting here today?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And that was based on your observations while you were the
19
commander of HSU, correct?
20
A.
21
operations.
22
Q.
DS
Based on all the phone calls I would get to conduct
IEN
All right.
13:37:32
Did you tell IA investigators, quote, Sometimes
13:37:50
13:37:58
And when you described that Chief Sands was
23
trying to do what the sheriff wanted, that included many of the
24
orders that you just testified to in the past couple of
25
minutes?
FR
13:37:14
13:38:13
2595
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you told Internal Affairs investigators that you
believed your chain of command is responsible for violations of
the preliminary injunction order, correct?
A.
was at the highest levels.
Q.
And that would include Chief Sands?
A.
Everyone in my chain of command, to include Chief Sands.
Q.
Would that include Chief Deputy Sheridan?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And would it include Sheriff Arpaio?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
I'm going to turn your attention, sir, to Exhibit --
Yes.
I believe there was the -- the failure to get it done
13:38:40
Do you have any exhibits?
14
THE CLERK:
15
MS. WANG:
16
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
Q.
19
evidence already.
21
23
He will right now.
And this is in
Your Honor, may I have it published?
That
13:39:13
might be faster than having the witness find the paper exhibit.
THE COURT:
If it's in evidence, you can have it
published.
24
THE WITNESS:
25
MS. WANG:
FR
13:38:52
Thank you.
Take a look at Exhibit 187.
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
Okay, sir.
DS
20
13:38:26
I found it, ma'am.
Okay, great.
13:39:23
2596
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
that Tim Casey sent on December 23rd, 2011, forwarding a copy
of the Court's summary judgment -- or preliminary injunction
order, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you received a copy of that, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you read it immediately, correct?
10
A.
Whenever I had access to it, yes.
11
Q.
All right.
12
that there was a court order that affected your work, correct?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
Take a look at -- I don't know if you have this one in
15
front of you.
So, sir, just to recap briefly, Exhibit 187 is an e-mail
17
13:40:21
Your Honor, I'd like to publish
Exhibit 2538, which is in evidence.

THE COURT:
18
MS. WANG:
19
You may publish.
Thank you.
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
22
sometime after you received a copy of the preliminary
DS
20
13:40:32
IEN
Now, sir, before you look at that, do you recall that
23
injunction order from Mr. Casey, you directed Sergeant Palmer
24
to draft some training scenarios to implement it, correct?
25
A.
FR
13:40:00
Because you paid attention to Mr. Casey saying
MS. WANG:
16
13:39:46
Yes, ma'am.
13:40:49
Q.
chain, the earliest one.
A.
This is really -- this is really blurry.
Q.
Yeah, we'll blow that up for you, don't worry.
All right.
the chain.
It's actually the one before this.
CaseySub 48.
Thank you.
It's actually the -- there you go, at the bottom.
9
10
Thank you, Mr. Klein.
13:41:21
So, sir, on January 11th of 2012 you sent an e-mail
11
12
instruction to Sergeant Palmer asking him to write up a couple
13
of training scenarios to implement Judge Snow's order, correct?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
preliminary injunction order from Tim Casey, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
All right.
19
the chain, Sergeant Palmer responded to you on January 19th of
20
2012 with his draft training scenarios, correct?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
And then if you look at the next e-mail up in the chain,
And that was sometime after you received the
DS
IEN
you forwarded Sergeant Palmer's draft to Tim Casey on January
24
24th, 2012, was that correct?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13:41:35
And then if you look at the next e-mail up in
23
FR
13:41:01
No, the earliest one starting at the bottom of page
7
8
So take a look at the last e-mail in this
So let's -- if Mr. Klein can get to the last e-mail in
5
6
2597
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
13:41:54
13:42:12
2598
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Asking him to review it, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So approximately one month passed between the time that
Judge Snow issued the preliminary injunction order and the time
that you sent Tim Casey Sergeant Palmer's draft training, is
that right?
A.
It looks that way, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
Sergeant Palmer to draft the training scenarios, is that
Now, first of all, you were the one who selected
10
correct?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And your e-mail indicates that you had already talked to
13
Tim Casey about the preliminary injunction order --
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
-- before -- sorry.
16
draft the scenarios?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And you were also aware that Casey had separate
19
conversations with Sergeant Palmer, correct?
20
A.
According to the e-mail string, yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
Sergeant Palmer is not an attorney, correct?
13:42:42
IEN
DS
Before you directed Sergeant Palmer to
13:42:55
13:43:05
And you were aware at the time, of course, that
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Were you aware, sir, that Sergeant Palmer previously had
25
been asked to do some legal research and had gotten things
FR
13:42:25
13:43:18
2599
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
wrong?
A.
was covering for me.
Q.
research he had done?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
those training scenarios?
A.
No, ma'am.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
directly to sergeants under your command at HSU, is that
12
correct?
13
A.
It wasn't unusual, ma'am.
14
Q.
Was not unusual, correct?
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
All right.
17
scenario to you on January 19th of 2012, you did not review
18
them yourself to check for accuracy, is that right?
19
A.
To the best of my recollection, I glossed them over.
20
Q.
You did not give him detailed feedback on it yourself, did
21
you?
22
A.
I vaguely remember that.
All right.
I think I was on vacation and he
But so you vaguely remember that there was some
Did you consider having somebody else draft
This was just a start point.
Now, it was not unusual for Tim Casey to speak
13:43:45
13:43:57
DS
Now, when Sergeant Palmer sent his draft
13:44:16
IEN
I don't believe so.
23
Q.
24
he had picked the correct factual scenarios?
25
A.
FR
13:43:30
And you did not review them to give him feedback on whether
No, ma'am.
As I sit here, I just remember reviewing them.
13:44:30
2600
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I couldn't tell you one way or another.
Q.
feedback on January 19th when you received them?
A.
I don't recall, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
by between the time that the preliminary injunction order came
down and the time that you forwarded Sergeant Palmer's
scenarios, his draft scenarios, to Tim Casey?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
And is it fair to say that you did not consider it very
11
urgent to get these training scenarios out?
12
A.
13
it when it came out, how I was interpreting it, once again, I
14
didn't think we were violating the order, but I wanted to get
15
something in writing to make sure I was correct.
16
Q.
17
that when the Court's preliminary injunction order came down
18
that HSU was not doing anything contrary to it.
19
A.
Correct, my -- my interpretation.
20
Q.
And that's why you did not see any great urgency to
21
immediately get that training scenario out to the troops,
22
correct?
Okay.
And you don't recall giving Sergeant Palmer any
And is it fair to say, sir, that a month went
13:45:05
I considered it urgent, but because of my interpretation of
You thought
13:45:47
IEN
DS
And so just let me make sure I understand.
13:45:29
23
A.
24
that's -- we definitely would have had a sergeants staff
25
meeting.
FR
13:44:43
Well, I'm just going by what the -- the time dates are.
We definitely would have talked about this.
If
So there
13:46:03
2601
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
would have been -- there would have been a lead up to it.
Q.
very urgent to -- I'm sorry.
THE COURT:
Okay.
I am going to intervene, even though he
13:46:19
You ask fast questions and you give fast answers.
Both of you need to slow down.

MS. WANG:
Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
10
MS. WANG:
11
12
You did not think it was
hasn't asked me to, on behalf of my court reporter.
6
7
But my only question is:
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
13:46:29
I'm sorry.
I forgot whether
there's a pending question.
THE COURT REPORTER:
13
(Shaking head no.)
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
not think there was an immediate need to get training scenarios
17
out on the preliminary injunction order within days of its
18
issuance, correct?
19
A.
20
ago.
21
because I sent it to -- I sent it out again before I
22
transferred out the week before, so it was important to me.
All right.
So, Lieutenant, my only question is:
You did
I really can't talk to my mindset three and a half years
IEN
DS
We had a judge's order, and I know it was important to me
23
All I know what my mindset was back then was that when I saw
24
the order, I didn't think we were in violation of it, as I
25
explained in April.
FR
13:46:54
So I think the lead-up was just trying to
13:47:12
13:47:32
2602
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
get the scenarios, get it right, and get something in writing.
Q.
at the time you were transferring out of HSU.
draft scenarios, correct?
A.
Correct, ma'am.
Q.
In fact, you never sent a copy of the preliminary
injunction order to anybody under your command, right?
A.
order out to everybody in the division.
Okay.
And you said just a moment ago you sent it out again
You mean the
13:47:48
I don't recall ever sending a complete -- a whole complete
10
Q.
And nor did you forward a copy of Tim Casey's December
11
23rd, 2011 order out to everybody under your command at HSU,
12
correct?
13
A.
I don't recall sending the entire order out.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
relevant periods of time, correct?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
And you have not found any such e-mail, correct?
18
A.
No, ma'am.
19
Q.
All right.
20
commander of HSU, from sending an e-mail out to your troops
21
under your command, correct?
22
A.
And you've done searches of your e-mails for the
13:48:16
DS
Sir, there was nothing stopping you, as the
13:48:26
IEN
No, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
e-mail out to everyone in HSU, correct?
25
A.
FR
13:48:01
You could have forwarded Tim Casey's December 23rd, 2011
Correct, ma'am.
But we would have sergeants -- the way a
13:48:41
2603
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
law enforcement agency works is we have staff meetings with the
sergeants, the sergeants disseminate the information.
Q.
to disseminate Tim Casey's December 23rd, 2011 e-mail to anyone
else, correct?
A.
I don't recall that, ordering them to do that.
Q.
Okay.
correct?
A.
To my knowledge, no.
10
Q.
You don't need any permission from your chain of command to
11
send an e-mail out to your troops under your command, correct?
12
A.
No, ma'am.
13
Q.
You did not impose a deadline by which the training
14
scenarios needed to be completed, correct?
15
A.
I don't recall, ma'am.
16
Q.
And I think you said that as of the time you transferred
17
out of HSU, that training scenario had not been finalized,
18
correct?
19
A.
20
hadn't heard back from Mr. Casey.
21
Q.
That would have been the end of March of 2012?
22
A.
I believe the first business day in April's when I
Okay.
You did not direct the sergeants under your command
13:48:59
And to your knowledge, they did not do that,
IEN
transferred out, so it would have been the week before that I
24
sent the e-mail out again.
25
Q.
FR
23
Okay.
13:49:31
As of three months after the order came out, I
DS
Correct.
13:49:08
Other than sending the e-mail again to Tim Casey --
13:49:45
13:49:57
2604
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
well, withdrawn.
As you were transferring out of your command of HSU,
2
3
you forwarded the e-mail string relating to the training
scenarios to Lieutenant Jakowinicz, correct?
A.
and copied the incoming lieutenant.
Q.
chain of command about making the training scenarios final, is
that correct?
I sent the e-mail to Sergeant Palmer, the senior sergeant,
Okay.
And aside from that, you did not follow up with your
10
A.
I don't remember, ma'am.
11
Q.
You don't recall doing that.
12
A.
I don't, ma'am.
13
Q.
And there's no e-mail documentation showing that you did,
14
correct?
15
A.
Didn't see one.
16
Q.
And you looked for that documentation, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
All right.
19
word of the preliminary injunction order needed to go out
20
office-wide, at least on the enforcement side, is that correct?
21
A.
As of that date, yes.
22
Q.
Which day?
DS
IEN
A.
As I understand the order now, yes.
24
Q.
I see.
FR
13:50:28
13:50:37
You testified in April that you thought that
23
25
13:50:13
13:50:51
I see.
And you did not take any steps to advise your chain of
13:51:09
2605
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
command of that at the time the preliminary order --
preliminary injunction order issued, correct?
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
Sir, do you agree that regardless of your personal opinion
about whether a court order is necessary, you must carry it
out?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And do you agree that at a minimum, the preliminary
injunction order could have been sent out immediately, as of
10
December 23rd, 2011, to people who were making traffic stops?
11
A.
Can you repeat that question?
12
Q.
Sure.
13
order could have been sent out immediately, as of December
14
23rd, 2011, to everyone at MCSO who was making traffic stops?
15
A.
16
the order then, I would have thought get some training done and
17
get every -- and get it out.
18
Q.
19
out on December 23rd, 2011, correct?
20
A.
Yes, it could have been out.
21
Q.
It could have gone out MCSO-wide, correct?
22
A.
Correct.
As I understood
IEN
Q.
24
sent out, correct?
25
A.
13:52:04
That e-mail could have gone
DS
But my question was:
23
FR
13:51:41
Do you agree with me that the preliminary injunction
As I understand the order now, absolutely.
Okay.
13:51:25
13:52:21
There could have been a Briefing Board type of document
Correct.
13:52:30
2606
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
December 23rd, 2011, an e-mail to HSU only that said:
the preliminary injunction order, do not detain someone based
solely on illegal presence in the United States, correct?
A.
were violating the order, ma'am.
Q.
Under
Based on my understanding at the time, I didn't think we
Okay.
That wasn't my question.
My question is:
8
9
Sir, you also could have sent out, as of
Sorry.
As of December 23rd, 2011, could you
have sent out an e-mail to HSU personnel saying:
Do not detain
10
people based solely on a suspicion that they're illegally in
11
the United States?
12
A.
13
that.
14
Q.
15
sent that e-mail out, correct?
16
A.
In general, I could have just sent that e-mail out, yes.
17
Q.
All right.
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Sir, in the December 2011 and January 2012 time frame, you
20
never had a meeting with your chain of command where everyone
21
responsible for carrying out this Court's preliminary
22
injunction order discussed it together, correct?
But again, sorry, that's not my question.
24
FR
25
You could have
Q.
13:53:25
But you did not send out an e-mail like that.
DS
A.
13:53:13
Based on my understanding at that time, we weren't doing
IEN
23
13:52:55
13:53:45
Ma'am, I heard everything except the time frame.

What was that time frame?
December 2011, January 2012.
13:54:00
2607
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Not that I remember, ma'am.
Q.
There was no meeting where everyone responsible for
carrying out the court order was given clear instructions,
correct?
A.
No, ma'am, not that I remember.
Q.
It would have been a good idea for such a meeting to
happen, do you agree?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Sir, I'm going to turn to the June 2012 time frame.
13:54:13
Take a
10
look at Exhibit 2554.
11
A.
54, ma'am, 25?
12
Q.
Yes, sir.
13
A.
I'm there, ma'am.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
Allen is forwarding to you on January -- sorry, June 7th, 2012,
16
a series of questions from J.J. Hensley of The Arizona
17
Republic.
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
All right.
20
anticipation of a possible Supreme Court ruling on the SB 1070
21
law, correct?
22
A.
FR
A.
13:55:33
Do you see that?
And this was about MCSO's practices in
DS
Q.
24
25
And Exhibit 2554 is an e-mail string where Lisa
13:55:49
Yes, ma'am.
IEN
23
13:54:29
All right.
Now, turn to Exhibit 2555.
And, sir --
I'm there, ma'am.
13:56:30
Q.
to Lisa Allen the same date, June 7th, 2012, responding to
J.J. Hensley's questions, is that correct?
A.
-- do you see that Exhibit 2555 is an e-mail that you sent
Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG:
5
6
All right.
Your Honor, I'd move to admit
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
10
THE COURT:
11
No objection.
Exhibit 25 --
MR. WALKER:
No objection.
No objection.
MS. WANG:
13
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
Exhibit 2555 is admitted.
Thank you.
Sir, turn to the second page of this document -MS. WANG:
16
And, Your Honor, I'd ask that it -- I could
THE COURT:
You may publish it.
19
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
"If an MCSO deputy conducts a traffic stop and has reasonable
22
suspicion the person they are out with might be in the country
IEN
DS
Sir, do you see on the second page of 2555 where you wrote:
13:57:04
illegally, they can contact ICE/ERO's LEAR section."
24
FR
13:56:57
publish it.
18
25
13:56:50
12
23
13:56:43
Exhibit 2555.
17
2608
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Do you see that?
Yes, ma'am.
13:57:23
2609
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Did that reflect your understanding of the operative law
and policy at MCSO as of the time that you left the Human
Smuggling Unit?
A.
Yes, that reflects it as of when I left.
Q.
And that would have been the first week of April of 2012,
correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
questions, even though you were no longer the commander of HSU,
And Lisa Allen had asked you to answer these
10
correct?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
All right.
13
ICE generally was not responding to MCSO calls about people
14
illegally present in the United States as of the time you left
15
HSU, correct?
16
A.
I believe so.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
"If a deputy decides to contact ICE, the phone call and process
19
needs to be completed within the course of the traffic stop.
20
The courts have consistently ruled 20 minutes is a reasonable
21
amount of time for a traffic stop.
22
conclude a traffic stop can increase well over 20 minutes, if
13:57:57
Now, you also noted in that same paragraph that
Now, take a look at the next paragraph.
DS
IEN
13:58:08
You wrote:
the deputy can articulate further investigation beyond the
24
original traffic violation."
FR
Do you see that?
13:58:24
The time a deputy takes to
23
25
13:57:41
13:58:41
2610
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And again, that reflected your understanding of the law and
policy at MCSO as of the time you left HSU?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
was HSU's practice under its standard operating procedure for
deputies to detain even longer than 20 minutes or longer than
the length of a traffic stop if ICE or Border Patrol told MCSO
to do so, is that correct?
Now, beyond that, setting aside this document, it
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And that was your understanding of MCSO's practices as of
12
the time you left HSU?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
All right.
15
that MCSO personnel outside of HSU also continued to detain
16
people for ICE after the preliminary injunction order came
17
down, correct?
18
A.
19
statistically speaking, probably happened.
20
Q.
21
14-543 case back in March of this year?
22
A.
13:59:29
Now, sitting here today, sir, you are aware
13:59:44
I can't remember of any specific incidences, but
Do you recall being interviewed by Mr. Vogel in the
DS
Okay.
14:00:06
IEN
It's a blur, ma'am, I did so many interviews.
23
Q.
24
districts were turning over as many people to ICE as HSU was?
25
A.
FR
13:58:59
Okay.
Well, do you agree with me that some of the patrol
I recall it now, ma'am.
District 2 patrol would come
14:00:38
2611
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
across a load.
and then they would call Border Patrol.
Q.
Patrol would turn over as many people to ICE as HSU did in the
course of its work?
A.
radio coming across -- coming across suspected loads, and just
calling Border Patrol and turning them over.
Q.
Okay.
They would take off, run, they would get them,
So it was -- your experience was that District 2
14:00:57
I wouldn't say as many, but I remember hearing them on the
So it was a common occurrence, in your experience, for
10
Patrol District 2 deputies to turn people over to ICE or Border
11
Patrol?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
Did you hear that on the radio?
15
16
ruling.
17
MS. WANG:
Sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
I'll sustain it.
MS. WANG:
18
I'll wait for the
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
radio Patrol District 2 deputies turning people over to ICE, is
22
that correct?
DS
I think you just mentioned that you would hear over the
IEN
24
FR
25
A.
14:01:26
Okay.
19
23
14:01:17
14:01:30
That wasn't on -MR. POPOLIZIO:
without a time frame.
Objection, Your Honor, as to relevance

14:01:39
2612
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
As of the time you left HSU?

THE COURT:
You may answer that question.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
6
7
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
experience?
Yes.
As amended.
All right.
And that was not an uncommon occurrence, in your
10
A.
No.
11
Q.
All right.
12
contacted ICE or Border Patrol about a person suspected as an
13
undocumented immigrant, there would have -- there should have
14
been documentation of that contact?
15
A.
Just contact, ma'am?
16
Q.
The question is:
17
personnel, contacted ICE or Border Patrol about someone
18
suspected to be in the United States unlawfully, would there be
19
documentation by MCSO of the contact with the federal agency?
20
A.
21
was taken, I don't think so.
22
Q.
14:01:57
Sir, do you agree that when MCSO personnel
No arrests, nothing like that?
DS
To the best of my recollection, unless enforcement action
IEN
Okay.
14:02:46
Take a look at Exhibit 2856, which you should have
in the stack in front of you.
24
A.
FR
14:02:20
If an MCSO deputy, sergeant, any
23
25
14:01:49
I'm sorry, ma'am.

MS. WANG:
I'm not seeing 2856.
Your Honor, may I ask Ms. Zoratti's
14:03:56
assistance?
I don't know if --
THE COURT:
Yes.
MS. WANG:
THE CLERK:
Thank you.
(Handing).
THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:
7
8
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
14:04:20
Thank you, ma'am.
Um-hum.
So, sir, I'll represent to you that this document was
10
produced to the plaintiffs by the defendants as the last
11
version of HSU's ICE/LEAR protocol.
12
2009.
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
August of 2009?
18
A.
19
peek.
20
Q.
It is dated August 18th,
Does this look familiar to you?
14:04:47
And was this the ICE/LEAR protocol in effect as of
I haven't seen it in a while.
I'm just going to take a
Please take a look.
14:05:19
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
Yeah, it's familiar, but I don't believe
23
this is the most current.
24
it ICE/LEAR protocol, but it ended up turning -- that we
25
retitled it HSU Operations Manual, I believe.
FR
14:04:31
Do you see that?
DS
21
2613
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
The SOP, I believe we used to call
That would be
14:05:55
2614
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the most current.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Exhibit 2856 that changed between August 18th, 2009, and the
time you left HSU?
A.
I'll have to review again.
Q.
Sure.
A.
Sorry, ma'am.
Q.
Actually, sir, let me withdraw that question.
All right.
And sitting here can you identify anything in
14:06:16
I'll ask you
10
something more specific so we could try to move along.
11
right?
12
A.
MS. WANG:
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
all.
THE COURT:
Let me double-check.
THE WITNESS:
24
MS. WANG:
FR
14:06:49
I have the virtue of
the transcript.
23
25
My recollection, he said he wasn't
familiar, or -- and that he had not seen this in a while.
IEN
22
14:06:39
I don't believe that's what he said at
MR. POPOLIZIO:
DS
21
He said he's
He said he -- that's what it was.
19
20
not familiar with it.
17
18
Your Honor, first I'd move to admit
Exhibit 2856.
15
16
14:06:29
Yes, ma'am.
13
14
All
time.
I take it it's okay if I keep reading?
Please.
That would be a good use of the

14:07:13
2615
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
You have correctly stated part of what he said, but
2
3
not the whole testimony.
He's indicated that he didn't see it
in a while, but there is a more current version, and that was
the former version.
I'm overruling the objection.
Then he talked about the HSU protocol, so
7
8
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Okay, sir.
I'm going to call your --
MS. WANG:
10
THE COURT:
11
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
paragraph 3.c.
Your Honor, may I publish the exhibit?
That would be
Sir, I'm going to call your attention to that.
The paragraph reads:
"In all such cases when LEAR is
16
contacted, whether LEAR accepts or refuses the illegal alien,
17
the supervisor will record the name of the person he spoke to
18
at LEAR and, if applicable, the reason LEAR refused.
19
supervisor will then be responsible for ensuring this
20
information is recorded on an F.I. card, along with the illegal
21
alien's complete information."
22
Do you see that, sir?
14:07:54
The
DS
IEN
14:07:41
You may.
Let's turn to the second page, paragraph c.
15
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
So first, this is describing the procedure that HSU
25
personnel should take when ICE/LEAR is contacted about a
FR
14:07:29
14:08:12
14:08:25
2616
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
suspected illegal alien, is that correct?
A.
If 2009, yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
that I just read out to you followed by HSU during any period
of time while you were in command of HSU?
A.
Up until 2009, yes.
Q.
Okay.
2009?
A.
And my question to you is:
Was this practice
So you believe that this practice discontinued after
Oh, no, ma'am.
It's been so long I'd have to see the most
10
current SOP to see if there was any changes.
11
Q.
12
whether this practice of having an HSU supervisor record
13
information about the contact with ICE/LEAR and about the
14
suspected illegal alien, did that practice continue between
15
2009 and the time you left command of HSU?
16
A.
17
Q.
All right.
18
followed by HSU?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
20
Q.
All right.
21
interview or field interrogation card?
22
A.
14:09:21
But at some point in time this practice was
And an F.I. card, just to be clear, is a field
14:09:31
IEN
Yes, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
made, by HSU, correct?
25
A.
FR
14:09:01
So but setting aside the document, do you recall
DS
Okay.
14:08:46
And those documents would have been kept, if they were
Yes, ma'am.
14:09:46
2617
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
The paragraph goes on to say that:
"The human
smuggling lieutenant will review the F.I. cards and file them
accordingly."
Do you see that?
4
5
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And was it your practice while you were the Human Smuggling
Unit lieutenant to file those F.I. cards?
A.
I don't remember this, ma'am.
Q.
You don't remember doing that?
10
A.
No, ma'am.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
on the same page.
13
applicable, may have MCSO dispatch make a blind call for any
14
287(g) who may be available to respond and take custody of the
15
suspected illegal alien."
16
Do you see that?
14:10:05
14:10:18
I'm going to turn your attention up to paragraph A

That paragraph reads:
"The supervisor, when
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And that, obviously, was the practice only while MCSO had
19
287(g) officers, is that correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
this first:
IEN
DS
14:10:48
During that period of time -- well, let me ask you

Was that, in fact, ever the practice while you
23
were commander of HSU?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am, when we had 287(g).
25
Q.
All right.
FR
14:10:38
And would that blind call through MCSO dispatch
14:11:01
2618
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
have been noted in the CAD records of MCSO?
A.
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Q.
All right.
agreement with the federal government, is it possible that
documentation of contacts with federal immigration authorities
might be found in the CAD records of MCSO?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. COMO:
8
9
And even after MCSO no longer had any 287(g)
Join.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
If you know.
11
A.
I don't know, ma'am.
12
Q.
All right.
13
know whether HSU personnel ever made a call out through MCSO
14
dispatch for assistance from federal immigration authorities?
15
A.
Are we talking when we had 287(g) or after we had --
16
Q.
After.
17
A.
-- 287(g)?
18
Q.
After.
19
A.
Not that I know of, ma'am.
20
Q.
All right.
21
there was no longer a 287(g) agreement?
22
A.
DS
10
14:11:39
In your experience as the HSU commander, do you
How would those contacts have happened after
14:12:03
14:12:12
By phone.
IEN
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
14:11:28
You know how those contacts happened, don't you, sir?
14:12:22
2619
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'll withdraw the objected-to question.
You know how the contacts between HSU personnel and
2
3
federal immigration authorities happened after the 287(g)
agreement was terminated, correct?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
All right.
A.
I believe by phone.
Q.
All right.
federal immigration agent?
14:12:42
And how did that happen?
So the MCSO deputy or sergeant would call a
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Based on what you see in this 2009 LEAR protocol, if you
12
wanted to go back and identify people who were detained by HSU
13
because they were suspected to be illegal aliens after the
14
preliminary injunction order, there should be documentation of
15
those contacts somewhere, is that right?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
17
21
order."
23
I said "after the preliminary injunction
MR. COMO:
I'll add foundation and compound question.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
It's a
MS. WANG:
DS
20
Objection, relevance.
14:13:26
time line.
18
19
14:12:54
Join.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
All records should exist somewhere if we
24
were writing them up, based on the preservation order, once I
25
was made aware of it.
FR
14:13:36
14:13:59
2620
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
would be documented, given that those contacts happened by
telephone in some instances?
A.
There's no way I could say with 100 percent certainty.
Q.
All right.
as of -- as to documentation of contacts with federal
immigration authorities by deputies in the Patrol Division?
Okay.
But would you be confident that every single contact
And to your knowledge, would the same be true
MR. COMO:
Foundation.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
THE COURT:
11
14:14:31
Sustained.
12
BY MS. WANG:
13
Q.
14
deputies or sergeants would have documented contacts with
15
federal immigration authorities?
16
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Do you have any knowledge about how Patrol Division
THE COURT:
17
14:14:41
Objection, compound.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
18
I'm not sure, ma'am.
I know Patrol
would call for Border Patrol, as we discussed.
How District 2
20
would do it, I don't know what their -- I don't know what their
21
SOP was.
22
kind of documentation they were doing.
IEN
DS
19
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
sorry, Patrol District 2 personnel calling out over the radio
Okay.
14:14:54
If they would have taken an information report, what
23
FR
14:14:10
And I think you testified that you heard patrol 2 -14:15:08
2621
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
about such contacts, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
So there might have been documentation of those contacts in
the CAD records, to your knowledge?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
8
9
I'm sorry.
Sure.
Can you repeat the question?
Let me break it down.
BY MS. WANG:
10
Q.
11
contacts by Patrol 2 personnel -- Patrol District 2 personnel
12
about contacts with federal immigration authorities, correct?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
And if those things happened over the MCSO radio channels,
15
would there be a record of that in the CAD records, to your
16
knowledge?
17
A.
To my knowledge, yes.
18
Q.
All right.
19
Your Honor, if I may.
20
ask that it only go up on the screen for the witness.
14:15:51
This document is not in evidence, so I'd
All right.
14:16:14
It will be witness and
counsel, of course.
23
MS. WANG:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
14:15:32
Sir, I'm going to show you on -- on the screen,
THE COURT:
IEN
22
You testified a moment ago that you heard actual radio
DS
21
14:15:20
She's asking for his knowledge.
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
Exhibit 2851.
So, Lieutenant, I'll represent to you that this is an Excel
14:16:28
spreadsheet that is CAD data that was produced by the
defendants to the plaintiffs.
document.
Okay?
And now, Your Honor, I'd like to also show
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
9
10
11
counsel?
2851, Your Honor.

All right.
2852?
THE COURT:
Yes.
THE COURT:
14
What was that last exhibit?
MS. WANG:
MS. WANG:
12
14:17:10
May I show that to the witness and to
You may.
15
BY MS. WANG:
16
Q.
17
also a very voluminous set of raw data from the CAD database.
Okay, sir.
14:17:24
And I'll represent to you that Exhibit 2852 is
All right.
18
And this one, does any of this -- well,
let me ask you, does any of this look familiar to you, or can
20
you recognize it?

For example, let's look at the line, line 51.
14:17:47
You see
there's a notation "S1764"?
IEN
22
DS
19
21
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Do you know whether that might be a call sign for a deputy?
25
A.
I believe that's a serial number for a deputy.
FR
14:16:46
Lieutenant Sousa Exhibit 2852.
13
It is a very voluminous
It's basically the raw data from the CAD system.
MS. WANG:
2622
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
14:18:03
2623
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
And it indicates in the CHC Comments column in the
same line, 51, number S1764, Armendariz, Ramon Charley.

Do you see that?
3
4
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Does this look to you like some of the data that you would
find in CAD records of MCSO?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
If you know.
10
A.
It's been so long since I looked at a CAD report, so I
11
don't -- I can't even remember ever seeing one like this
12
before.
13
Q.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, Exhibits 2851 and 2852 are
15
among the exhibits that we've asked defendants to stipulate to
16
admitting.
17
asking them to stipulate to its admission at this time in order
18
to avoid the necessity to call a witness simply to authenticate
19
the document.
Each of these documents was produced to us on a
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Your Honor, at this time -- this is a
23
voluminous document, as counsel has indicated, and we haven't
24
had a chance to go through all this.
25
going to stipulate to this and I'm going to object to
FR
14:19:09
separate CD, and it is a very voluminous set of data.
IEN
22
14:18:48
We haven't heard any response, and I guess I'm
DS
21
14:18:32
Okay.
14
20
14:18:20
So at this time I'm not

14:19:26
2624
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
foundation.
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, the objection is
sustained.
You don't have to stipulate.
authorize you, if you need to, to call whoever you need to to
try to lay the foundation to get this in.

MS. WANG:
All right.
THE COURT:
But I am going to
That does not mean, Mr. Popolizio, that if
you're willing to stipulate after you take a close look at it,
that it wouldn't save everybody a lot of time and trouble if
10
you're willing to stipulate.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. WANG:
13
All right.
All right.
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
based on your experience as the commander of HSU, you believe
17
that some contacts with federal immigration authorities about
18
suspected undocumented immigrants might be documented in MCSO
19
CAD records, correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
24
THE WITNESS:
FR
14:20:14
I think he's already laid the foundation.
23
25
14:19:53
IEN
22
So, Lieutenant, just to sum up, make sure we're clear,
DS
21
14:19:49
I understand that, Your Honor.
14
20
14:19:37

I believe if the deputy broadcasts over
the radio, have ICE or Border Patrol contact me at a number,
14:20:29
2625
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
then it would probably make it to CAD; if he calls directly, it
wouldn't make it to CAD.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
contacts with federal immigration authorities, but you can't be
confident that the CADs records would contain all such
contacts, correct?
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Well, is that -- is what I just said correct?
10
A.
Oh, I'm sorry.
11
Q.
Okay.
All right.
Yes, ma'am.
14:20:55
We can take that down.
Now, sir, I started out by asking you about some of
13
the recent IA cases that arose after Charley Armendariz died.

You were a principal in three of them, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
There was the 14-543 case relating to responsibility for
18
violations of the Court's preliminary injunction order,
19
correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
There was the 14-542 case, which is about supervision
22
failures with Charley Armendariz, correct?
IEN
DS
16
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And then there was the 14-541 case about mishandling of
25
property or evidence by HSU, correct?
FR
14:20:46
Thank you.
All right.
12
14
So there might be some documentation of such
14:21:13
14:21:26
14:21:37
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you were also interviewed by PSB investigators in
connection with other so-called Armendariz spin-off
investigations, correct?
A.
just those three.
Q.
I believe I was only interviewed by PSB for administrative,
Okay.
All right.
Let's start with the 543 investigation into the
preliminary injunction violations.
You were charged with four
factual allegations, correct?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And there were multiple charge policy violations under each
13
of those, correct?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
You started out with a preliminary finding of sustained on
16
the allegation that you failed to ensure proper dissemination
17
and interpretation of the preliminary injunction order,
18
correct?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
20
Q.
Ultimately, though, you received findings of not sustained
21
as to all of the charges, correct?
22
A.
DS
10
14:22:16
14:22:24
14:22:38
IEN
Yes, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
suspension without pay on that sustained violation -- sustained
25
finding, correct?
FR
14:21:50
I could be wrong, I did so many interviews.
We'll go through them one by one, then.
Okay.
8
9
2626
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Now, initially in the 543 case you were facing a 40-hour
14:22:57
Would you like to look at a document to refresh your
1
2
recollection?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
in front of you.
Sorry.
It's up on the screen
14:23:20
Let's highlight the top half.
2627
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
There you go.
That's the wrong case number.
Let me find the
right one.
It is Exhibit 2896.
Does that refresh your recollection that you were
10
11
facing a 40-hour suspension without pay in the 543 case?
12
A.
And the -- and the 543 case is the 2011 order?
13
Q.
Correct.
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
Now, you were able to get that sustained finding reversed
18
to not sustained through the predetermination hearing process,
19
is that right?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
And in the predetermination hearing, you made your case to
22
Chief Olson, correct, about why you should not receive that
IEN
DS
That's major discipline, correct?
sustained finding?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
Now, do you recall that Chief Olson told you at the
FR
23
14:23:46
14:24:01
14:24:16
14:24:29
2628
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
beginning of your predetermination hearing, quote, Your bosses
let you down, end quote?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
But then he ended up also telling you, You bear some
responsibility for the violations of the preliminary injunction
order, correct?
A.
At the end, yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you thought those two statements were contradictory,
correct?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am, 'cause I didn't get what responsibility.
11
was my responsibility.
12
Q.
13
with the MCSO policy on command responsibility?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
Under the MCSO policy on command responsibility, if a
16
lieutenant is found guilty of a policy violation, but his
17
commanders are also found guilty of that violation, does that
18
absolve the lieutenant under MCSO policy?
19
A.
I'd have to review it, ma'am.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
Chief Olson, is that right?
22
that was responsible?
All right.
14:25:09
14:25:34
That it was your chain of command
23
A.
24
let him know that -- about the -- how I interpreted the order.
25
Everybody I talked to about the order, that I tried to put on
FR
No, ma'am.
14:24:56
Sir, are you familiar as a lieutenant at MCSO
That's essentially the argument you made to
DS
IEN
What
14:24:45
I believe it was also the facts, 'cause I also
14:25:54
2629
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the training.
predetermination hearing had a lot to do with the facts and
also the mitigating -- and also the mitigating factors.
Q.
you made that your chain of command was more responsible than
you were, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
the what you called political rhetoric that was part of the
10
orders you got from your chain of command while you were --
11
while you were in charge of HSU, correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am, as part of the mitigating factors.
13
Q.
And your arguments to Chief Olson were ultimately
14
successful, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
You ended up with no sustained findings in the 543 case,
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
All right.
20
without pay to no discipline at all, correct?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
Let's turn to the 542 case.
IEN
23
24
FR
25
So the
And the mitigating factors included the arguments
DS
Okay.
I tried to follow up on the training.
14:26:13
And you also gave him arguments about all of
14:26:27
14:26:38
So you went from facing a 40-hour suspension
14:26:49
This was the one about
failures of supervision of Deputy Armendariz.

Now, before we get to what happened in that case, you
have testified about how you protested to your chain of command
14:27:06
2630
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
when Charley Armendariz was assigned to HSU, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
He had a known history of problems as a deputy before he
came under your command at HSU, correct?
A.
I knew he got a lot of citizens' complaints, and I knew he was
coming off of an IA investigation.
Q.
civilian complaint about seeing him drinking on duty in a bar,
I did not personally know him, but I knew his reputation.
All right.
And that IA investigation had involved a
10
is that correct?
11
A.
12
IA, and that's the rumor I heard.
13
Q.
14
high number of civilian complaints, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
But he was transferred to your command anyway, is that
17
right?
18
A.
Without consulting with me, yes.
19
Q.
You tried to stop it from happening, correct?
20
A.
I believe I had a captain at the time, and I went to him
21
and said:
22
Q.
14:27:41
That was the rumor.
I have no -- I know he came off of an
And you also heard that he had a reputation of having a
DS
14:27:52
14:28:05
Why am I getting this guy?
IEN
Was that Captain Tyo?
23
A.
It would have been Captain Tyo or Captain Jones.
24
Q.
All right.
25
to your command anyway, correct?
FR
14:27:24
And despite your protests, he was transferred

14:28:16
2631
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
entire time that you were an HSU lieutenant, you never got any
training on how to deal with a deputy like Charley Armendariz,
who had a high number of civilian complaints, is that correct?
A.
I left HSU when we did the Randy Means leadership training on
how to handle that.
trained on how to handle civilian complaints where you can't
And is it true that you never, during the
The first formal training that I've ever received was after
That was the first time I've ever been
10
put your finger on exactly what's going on.
11
Q.
12
commander at SWAT?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
Do you recall when that Randy Means training was?
15
A.
Late 2013, early 2014.
16
Q.
Take a look at Exhibit 2559C.
17
A.
What was that number, ma'am?
18
Q.
2559C.
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
Let me ask you this.
I'm not sure, sir.
14:29:37
I believe we put
that on ourselves, but I'm not sure.
23
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
25
MS. WANG:
FR
14:29:05
was required by the injunction order in this matter?
IEN
22
By year?
Is the Randy Means training part of what
DS
21
14:28:51
And do you recall -- that's been since you've been a deputy
19
20
14:28:33
All right.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
It's okay.
I forgot.
2559C.
14:29:52
2632
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
find your paper copy, because I'm going to ask you about it.
Actually, you can set that aside for now.
It's also up on your screen, but you may -- you may want to
you a few other questions first.
Let me ask
But keep it handy, please.
Now, in the 542 case you were charged as a principal
6
7
on alleged policy violations that you had failed to adequately
supervise Charley Armendariz, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
And there were two factual allegations in this case,
11
correct?
12
A.
I believe so.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
a complaint that Charley Armendariz stole $300 from a woman
15
during a traffic stop, is that right?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
And the second was that you failed to send Armendariz to
18
training after there was a clear pattern of civilian complaints
19
against him, correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
22
order training, you were aware even before he came under your
DS
IEN
14:30:48
One was that you had failed to follow up properly on
14:31:02
14:31:12
Now, on the second allegation about failure to
23
command that Armendariz had many civilian complaints, is that
24
right?
25
A.
FR
14:30:31
Yes, ma'am, that was the rumor.
14:31:29
2633
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And you were aware after he was in your command at HSU that
he had many civilian complaints about his traffic stops, is
that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you had ordered Armendariz to record all of his traffic
stops as a way of dealing with the high level of civilian
complaints, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
But you did not watch those videos except for one, correct?
10
A.
I believe when I -- I ordered him to record all of them.
11
let him know:
12
going to want to watch it.
13
Q.
14
that right?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
HSU to review Armendariz's traffic stop videos on a regular
18
basis, correct?
19
A.
I don't recall that, ma'am.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
at HSU to review the videos on a regular basis, correct?
22
A.
Okay.
14:31:57
From now on, another complaint comes in, I'm
But in fact, you only watched one of the videos, is
14:32:14
And you also did not tell any of the sergeants at
DS
Well, my question is:
You did not tell any sergeant
14:32:26
IEN
Yes, I don't remember ever saying that.
23
Q.
24
complaint on a traffic stop, correct?
25
A.
FR
14:31:40
Okay.
The one video you did review was about a civilian
Yes, ma'am.
14:32:50
2634
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And you reviewed that video with Chief Trombi, is that
correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Based on that review, you did not believe that Armendariz
engaged in any conduct that rose to the level of a policy
violation, correct?
A.
Not on that review, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
based on your review of that one traffic video, correct?
14:33:02
You could not put your finger on anything wrong,
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And you did not review any other traffic stop videos of
12
Charley Armendariz, correct?
13
A.
14
said a female was going to make a complaint on him.
15
calling him a woodpecker.
16
prison term, I guess.
17
This lady's going to make a complaint on me.
18
want to watch it.
19
Q.
20
correct?
21
A.
22
one that actually Charley brought it to me to watch, 'cause he
14:33:15
Well, yeah, there was another one.
He showed it to me.
She was
I don't know what that means; it's a
14:33:30
I remember he brought me a video, goes,
Here it is if you
DS
That's the one video of Charley Armendariz that you saw,
IEN
No, ma'am.
14:33:43
I saw one with Chief Trombi, and then this was
23
thought she was going to make a complaint.
24
Q.
25
stops by Charley Armendariz?
FR
He
I see.
So you watched a total of two videos of traffic

14:34:00
2635
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
was any indication that Charley Armendariz violated MCSO
policy?
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Now, you were interviewed by Sergeant Fax of PSB in the 542
case, correct?
A.
We're still talking about Armendar- -- supervision?
Q.
Supervision case, right.
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
Mr. Vogel in the same case, correct?
13
A.
14
then Vogel.
15
Q.
16
PSB's review of a larger number of Charley Armendariz's traffic
17
stop videos, it appeared that he had been making a large
18
number of off-duty stops and running Code 3 inappropriately?
19
A.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
you?
22
13th, 2014 interview with Sergeant Fax, and I believe Sergeant
FR
14:34:28
And that was before you were interviewed by
Now, do you recall that Sergeant Fax told you that based on
14:34:41
I did so many interviews.
DS
Take a look -- do you have Exhibit 2800 in front of
14:35:09
That was your November -- the transcript of your November
Bocchino of PSB was also there.
24
25
14:34:08
I believe it started Rick Morris first; then Steve Fax;
IEN
23
And on neither one of those did you think there
A.
Do you have it in front of you now?
Yes, ma'am.
14:36:08
Q.
Okay.
MELC-IA013310.
Okay.
The turn to page 15, please.
That would be
Do you see in the fourth paragraph down at
about line 634 Sergeant Fax says:
top --
I don't remember off the
14:36:34
MR. POPOLIZIO:
2636
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
She's
reading --
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
I'm sorry.
10
A.
I'm not sure if I'm where you need me to be.
11
15 --
12
Q.
Page 15, line 634.
13
A.
634.
14
Q.
It's the sentence -- the paragraph starts off "that we've
15
watched of just Armendariz."
16
A.
Okay.
17
Q.
So read that paragraph to yourself.
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
Fax of PSB told you during your interview in the 542 case that
21
Charley Armendariz appeared to have made a number of off-duty
22
traffic stops and was inappropriately running Code 3?
24
FR
25
I'm on page
A.
14:36:39
14:36:54
Does that refresh your recollection that Sergeant
DS
IEN
23
Why don't you read that paragraph to yourself.
14:37:25
Yes, ma'am.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
this is a compelled statement.
And 403.
Relevance, and
14:37:43
MS. WANG:
1
2
Honor?
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Would you like to hear argument on it, Your
Yes, let's do it at sidebar.
Okay.
(Bench conference on the record.)
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
14:37:56
This is the most exclusive ticket in town.
You should sell them.
All right, Your Honor.
8
9
2637
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
There are two points I'm
trying to make with this testimony.
One is that I'm going to
10
follow this up with questions about Lieutenant Sousa's failure
11
to have watched the videos, and the second larger point is what
12
transpired during the 542 case and the evidence that IA
13
investigators had, which I believe are at odds with the
14
ultimate findings in that case.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
Well, Your Honor, I still object to
16
relevance, and it is a compelled statement.
17
him testify what he did or did not do with regard to any of the
18
videos, and what he -- what he planned to do.

THE COURT:
19
Well, I agree with the latter point.
21
prevents the refreshing of his recollection of what Sergeant
22
Fax said to him in the interview.
DS
don't see how the fact that this is a compelled statement
IEN
14:38:51
She's already had
20
23
Can you tell me how that affects the relevance of it?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE COURT:
FR
14:38:28
14:39:11
Well --
Do you have any authority that would
14:39:26
suggest --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
3
4
2638
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I do not.
Okay.
Then I am going to -- I mean,
you've just had him look at this.

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Um-hum.
You had him look at it to refresh his
recollection.
the first point, since you've already covered that, I think you
can cover your point without referring specifically to this.
I tend to agree with what Mr. Popolizio said on
10
But to the extent you want to raise it as inconsistent with the
11
other 542 --
MS. WANG:
12
13
14
THE COURT:
-- conclusions, I will allow you to do so.
MS. WANG:
And I'm not planning, Your Honor, to elicit
what he told Sergeant Fax; I'm eliciting what Sergeant Fax told
16
him.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
18
THE COURT:
19
21
THE COURT:
23
MS. WANG:
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
FR
14:39:59
That was my understanding.
Right.
All right.
Thank you.
14:40:10
(Bench conference concluded.)
IEN
22
MS. WANG:
DS
20
14:39:50
Um-hum.
15
17
14:39:35
You may proceed, please.

So I believe, Lieutenant Sousa, you did manage to get your
14:40:28
2639
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
answer in that this did refresh your recollection that Sergeant
Fax of PSB told you that the review of Armendariz's traffic
stop videos indicated he had made off-duty stops and had been
inappropriately running Code 3, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And Code 3 is when an officer activates lights and siren on
a patrol vehicle, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
14:40:45
Now, you did not know that Armendariz was
10
engaged in that behavior while you were his commander, correct?
11
A.
Correct.
12
Q.
And that is because you did not review the traffic stop
13
videos while you were in command of HSU, correct?
14
A.
Correct.
15
Q.
All right.
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
All right.
18
certain documents at the -- during your interview, correct?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
20
Q.
By the investigators?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
All right.
24
FR
25
We didn't have a policy.
DS
IEN
23
14:40:59
But you knew they existed, correct?
14:41:16
During the 542 investigation you were shown
14:41:32
Actually, can we show the first page, which should say
"Items shown to Lieutenant Sousa"?

There you go.
14:42:02
2640
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
So, sir, the document is a number of pages long.
will tell you that we received this in the production of the
14-542 file, and it was represented that these were items that
were shown to you during your interview in the 542 case.
please review it and let me know if that is accurate.
So
6
7
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
All right.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
Were those items that Internal Affairs investigators showed
11
you during your interview in the 542 case?
12
A.
I remember some of it; I don't remember some of it.
13
Q.
Okay.
Have you had a chance to review that, sir?
All right.
14:44:23
Well, let's turn to page MELC-IA012351.
And if you look at that page and the several pages
14
15
following that, it appears that there were two employee
16
performance appraisals of Charley Armendariz that are included
17
in this packet of material.
18
and one is dated November 7th of 2010.
14:44:45
One is dated September 30th, 2008,
Do you see that?
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
22
during your 542 interview?
IEN
DS
20
14:45:13
Do you recall being shown these two documents
23
A.
As I sit here, I don't.
24
Q.
All right.
25
you agree that those two performance appraisals of Charley
FR
14:42:20
Well, take a look at them and let me know if

14:45:24
2641
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Armendariz in 2008 -- well, let me ask you this first.
Withdraw what I just said.
Does your signature appear on both of these documents?
3
4
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And as the HSU lieutenant, you would sign off regularly on
employee performance appraisals for HSU personnel, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Along with your sergeants, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
All right.
11
employee performance appraisals of Charley Armendariz were
12
generally positive ones?
13
A.
If it says "meets standards," they usually are.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
outstanding rating in one category and then an excellent rating
16
in two categories, is that correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
remaining categories, correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
22
2008 appraisal, the conclusion reads:
14:46:21
And then he got a satisfactory rating in the
14:46:41
And then if you turn to the last page of the
23
asset to the human smuggling --"
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
from a document not in evidence.
FR
14:46:00
Well, looking at the 2008 appraisal, he received an
DS
IEN
Now, do you agree with me that these two
14:45:46
"Charley, you are an
She's reading
14:47:00
MS. WANG:
2642
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, I don't think I have a
foundation to admit the entire exhibit, but I think there is a
foundation to admit this subpart, and I'd ask for permission to
go ahead and read from these two employee performance appraisal
documents.
14:47:16
THE COURT:
Well, why don't you find out -- I don't
know whether he -- Lieutenant Sousa wrote this, or whether it
was written there when he signed it.
Can you clarify that, please?
MS. WANG:
10
Sure, I can ask that.
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
13
that right?
14
A.
According to the cover sheet, yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
A.
On this first one it looks like I reviewed it for Captain
17
Jones.
18
Q.
19
signature, correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
Lieutenant Sousa, Sergeant Madrid wrote the appraisal, is

Do you recall?
And you reviewed it before signing it, correct?
But you did review it.
DS
Okay.
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
23
THE COURT:
24
MS. WANG:
FR
25
14:47:29
BY MS. WANG:
14:47:39
That's indicated by your
14:47:50
Your Honor, may I go ahead and -Yeah.

Okay.
14:47:55
2643
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
So, sir, looking again at the conclusion paragraph,
Sergeant Madrid wrote:
Smuggling Unit as well as the Sheriff's Office.
pleasure having you on my squad."
"Charley, you are an asset to the Human

It has been a
Do you see that?
14:48:08
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And that was part of what you reviewed and approved in
2008, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
All right.
Now --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
No.
14:48:12
Your Honor, is this in evidence now?
I merely allowed counsel to read the
13
written notation.
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
employee performance appraisal for Charley Armendariz.
17
you signed -- reviewed and signed this document, correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
And you did so on January 24th of 2011?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
And again, was this document something that Sergeant Madrid
22
had written?
And Lieutenant, take a look now at the 2010
IEN
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And actually looking down below, it looks like Chief Trombi
25
also signed this, is that correct?
FR
14:48:24
Again,
DS
All right.
14:48:43
14:49:01
2644
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And he indicated that Charley Armendariz was eligible for a
merit pay increase, is that correct?
Do you see the checked box next to Chief Trombi's
4
5
signature?
A.
Oh, yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
Charley Armendariz would be eligible for a merit pay increase,
is that right?
14:49:25
And so again, Chief Trombi indicated that
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And again, in this 2010 performance appraisal for Charley
12
Armendariz, he got a combination of satisfactory and excellent
13
marks, correct?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
performance appraisal to the last paragraph number 7 with the
17
heading "Other."
18
A.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
IEN
22
14:50:21
Yes.
All right.
23
BY MS. WANG:
24
Q.
25
written reprimand regarding a missing report that was initiated
FR
14:50:06
And Your Honor, may I read from this again
with the foundation laid?
DS
21
Turn again to the last page of the 2010
Yes, ma'am.
19
20
14:49:42
So Sergeant Madrid wrote:
"During 2010 you received a

14:50:28
2645
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
at Chase Field.
After IA concluded the investigation, you were
found to be in violation of CP-2, code of conduct, section 11,
performance or dereliction of duty, subsection F.
with IA's finding and signed and received the reprimand.
believe this was an isolated incident.
being an issue in the future."
You agreed
I
I don't foresee this
Do you see that?
7
8
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you reviewed and signed off on that, correct?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Do you see down below there is a handwritten note:
12
"Charley, thanks for your hard work."
13
after that, is that correct?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
Do you recognize Chief Trombi's handwriting there?
16
A.
I don't recognize his handwriting, but that's his name.
17
Q.
Fair enough.
18
this refresh your recollection that PSB investigators showed
19
you these documents during the 542 investigation?
20
A.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
performance appraisals, 2008, 2010, you were in regular
14:50:57
Looks like "Trombi"
And I'll ask you again, sir:
Does any of
14:51:27
DS
IEN
14:51:06
Sir, during the time periods covered by these two
23
communication with Chief Trombi, correct?
24
of command?
25
A.
FR
14:50:49
Yes, ma'am.
He was in your chain
14:51:50
2646
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And you were also in regular communication with
Chief Sands, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And during that period of time Charley Armendariz continued
to receive a high number of civilian complaints, is that
correct?
A.
I believe so, ma'am.
Q.
And did you communicate those complaints to your chain of
command, Chiefs Sands and Trombi, at the time?
10
A.
I believe during the Kaufmann complaint when Chief Trombi
11
and I watched a video we had that conversation.
12
Q.
13
complaint?
14
A.
15
that Charley gets -- Deputy Armendariz gets a lot of citizens'
16
complaints, that we can't put our finger on it.
A lot of them
17
were the kind of complaints where you call it:
Was he raising
18
his voice?
19
put our finger on what it was.
20
Q.
21
the time that you commanded Charley Armendariz that he had a
22
high number of civilian complaints?
14:52:17
So you alerted Chief Trombi just to that one civilian
No.
During that reviewing that complaint, I advised him
No.
IEN
DS
All right.
Did he swear at you?
No.
A.
24
video, I know we had that conversation.
25
Q.
14:52:31
We just couldn't
And but you informed your chain of command at
23
FR
14:52:01
14:52:49
When Chief Trombi and I sat down to watch the Kaufman
So that was the only time you ever kept your chain of
14:53:06
2647
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
command in the loop about that?
A.
That's the only one that I can remember as of today.
Q.
Okay.
that you had alerted Chief Trombi in your chain of command to
the complaints against Charley Armendariz?
A.
IA inves- --
Q.
Okay.
A.
-- during the IA.
10
Q.
I'm going to turn to the second allegation against you in
11
the 542 case.
12
complaint that Armendariz stole $300 during a traffic stop.
13
Okay?
Did you tell the IA investigators in the 542 case
I don't -- I don't remember that question during the
15
the report on 14-542.
16
look at it there.
This is attachment 1 from
It's up on your screen if you'd like to
14:54:01
Sir, is this the -- was there a memorandum,
17
purportedly from Sergeant Madrid to you, that was the --
19
basically the subject of that allegation in the 542 case?
20
A.
I believe this was what I was shown during my IA.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
case, the charges against you?
IEN
DS
18
14:54:50
This was the thing that was at issue in the 542
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
All right.
FR
14:53:34
This was one about failing to act on a civilian
Let's turn to Exhibit 2560.
14
25
14:53:22
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, I'd like to admit Exhibit 2560.
14:55:00
2648
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
5
6
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
this document, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
And in this document, it appears to be a memorandum from
11
Sergeant Madrid to you dated May 17th, 2010, is that correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And in it, Sergeant Madrid apparently wrote that on -- let
14
me just sum up, tell me if I'm right.
15
that he had received a complaint from you that was forwarded
16
from MCSO IA that mistakenly originated with the Phoenix Police
17
Department, was that right?
18
A.
That's what it says, yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
Right?
So in the 542 case, IA investigators showed you
Sergeant Madrid wrote
And essentially, a woman named Amber Murphy reported
to the Phoenix Police Department that she was missing $300
22
after she was arrested for a DUI by Deputy Armendariz and
IEN
21
23
Posseman Conyers and Deputy Porter.
24
Do you see that?
FR
25
A.
14:55:27
14:55:49
Okay.
DS
20
All right.
14:55:19
Yes, ma'am.
14:56:03
14:56:23
2649
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
was essentially that you had received this memorandum from
Sergeant Madrid and you had failed to forward this memorandum
to MCSO's Internal Affairs division, correct?
A.
I believe that was the allegation.
Q.
All right.
that Sergeant Madrid had stated in his interview with them that
you had told him that Phoenix Police Department had received
the civilian complaint about a theft, and that you had passed
10
All right.
And the allegation against you in the 542 case
And Internal Affairs investigators told you
it along to him.
14:57:08
Do you recall that?
11
12
A.
13
remember this at all.
14
remembered this.
15
Q.
16
interviewed you told you what Sergeant Madrid had said,
17
correct?
18
A.
I don't remember if it was Fax or Vogel at this point.
19
Q.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch that.
20
A.
I don't know if it was Sergeant Fax or Mr. Vogel at this
21
point.
22
Q.
I believe in his first interview, Sergeant Madrid didn't
And the Internal Affairs investigator who
DS
Okay.
It was in his second interview that he
IEN
Okay.
14:57:21
14:57:36
But in any event, one of them, at least, informed
23
you that Sergeant Madrid had told them that you had given him
24
this complaint to handle, correct?
25
A.
FR
14:56:37
I believe so.
14:57:49
2650
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Sergeant Madrid stated in his interview that he had prepared
this memorandum, now marked Exhibit 2560, and had sent it to
you, correct?
A.
I -- I don't -- I don't remember.
Q.
Okay.
front of you.
A.
2218?
Q.
Correct.
10
11
And Internal Affairs also informed you that
Take a look at Exhibit 2218, which should be in

This is the report on the 542 case.
It's going to be a pretty thick document.
Okay, sir.
Turn to page MELC-IA011218.
All right.
And just read it to yourself.
12
A.
The entire page?
13
Q.
Why don't you start -- actually, read the last paragraph
14
on that page.
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
All right.
17
to whether IA informed you that Madrid stated to them that he
18
had given you a copy of this memorandum?
19
A.
20
this I went up and read this.
21
here "He said he would have probably walked," so he's answering
22
hypothetically on what he would normally do, not that he did
14:59:18
15:00:15
Does that refresh your recollection at all as
IEN
DS
I don't remember this, but I remember for the grievance on

Because as you can see, it says
23
it.
24
Q.
25
prior to the grievance stage, would you have had access to
FR
14:58:08
Okay.
Let me ask you this:
15:00:35
During the IA investigation,

15:00:55
2651
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
these materials?
A.
grievance stage, no, ma'am.
Q.
give you a lot of information about the charges against you,
correct?
A.
interviews.
Q.
They showed you documents, correct?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And they shared with you what other principals in the case
12
had said in their interviews, correct?
13
A.
I believe so; I can't be sure.
14
Q.
Okay.
Prior to the investigation being concluded until the
All right.
The IA investigators who interviewed you did
I'm sure they did, ma'am.
Like I said, I did so many
15:01:19
Now, take a look at the next page of that document.
Well, before you do that, let me ask you first:
15
Do
16
you know whether Sergeant Madrid told the IA investigators that
17
he had transmitted this memo to the Internal Affairs division
18
as well?
19
A.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
Internal Affairs investigators that once he transmitted the
22
memo to you and to Internal Affairs, he considered his job
IEN
DS
Do you know whether Sergeant Madrid told
23
done, and that he did not need to concern himself any more with
24
this complaint?
25
A.
FR
15:01:09
I think I remember that when I reviewed it for the
15:01:46
15:02:03
15:02:25
2652
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
grievance process.
Q.
general with MCSO policies that apply to sergeants under your
command, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
correct that a sergeant handling a civilian complaint about one
of his deputies need not be concerned any more about that
complaint once it's transmitted to the Internal Affairs
Okay.
Sir, as a lieutenant at MCSO, you were familiar in
15:02:39
Do you think that under MCSO policy it is
10
Division?
11
A.
No, ma'am.
12
Q.
You do not agree with that?
13
A.
No, ma'am.
14
Q.
All right.
15
that you would have sent a civilian complaint like this up your
16
chain of command, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
You said that if you received this complaint, you would
19
have sent it to the chief -- Chiefs Trombi and Sands, correct?
20
A.
21
Chief Trombi to IA.
22
Q.
15:02:59
Now, you told Internal Affairs investigators
DS
Sitting here, it would have went to Chief Trombi; from
IEN
Okay.
15:03:26
You would not have sent the complaint directly to IA
23
yourself.
24
A.
No, it would go to the bureau chief.
25
Q.
All right.
FR
15:03:09
And that would -- that would have been your
15:03:38
2653
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
practice while you were the commander of HSU?
A.
That was my practice.
Q.
All right.
received a civilian complaint and sent it to Chief Trombi
rather than directly to Internal Affairs?
A.
remember, but --
Q.
All right.
A.
-- I'm sure there was.
10
Q.
In those instances, did you follow up with the deputy in
11
question?
12
A.
13
think of another one right now.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Yes.
16
chief to go to IA for investigation.
17
Q.
18
up directly with one of the deputies in question in those
19
cases?
20
A.
21
so I could narrow it down.
22
even remember another incident right now outside of this one.
So there were other instances where you
I'm sure there was.
Off the top of my head, I can't
I don't recall off the top of my head, ma'am.
I can't even
There's no doubt that I sent stuff to the bureau
All right.
DS
IEN
15:04:21
But you do not recall whether you ever followed
I would have to remember what incident we're talking about
Okay.
15:04:01
But you think it did happen?
15:04:34
Off the top of my head, I can't
23
Q.
24
situation to follow up with the deputy in question?
25
civilian complaint.
FR
15:03:51
Would it have been your regular practice in that

About the
15:04:56
2654
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Me follow up with the deputy?
Q.
Correct.
A.
No, I don't believe so.
follow up.
Q.
sergeant follow up with the deputy after forwarding the
civilian complaint to Chief Trombi?
A.
comes to complaints, citizens' complaints, it would be the
Okay.
I would have had the sergeant
So it would have been your practice to have the
Yes, ma'am, 'cause usually I would have this -- when it
10
sergeants that would make the phone calls, do all the
11
follow-up.
12
Q.
13
aware -- you became aware during the grievance process that
14
Sergeant Madrid said once he sent the -- this particular
15
civilian complaint, Exhibit 2560, to Internal Affairs, it did
16
not concern him any more.
17
A.
18
grievance process.
19
Q.
20
practice, as you've just testified, of instructing a sergeant
21
to follow up with the deputy after forwarding a civilian
22
complaint up the chain of command to IA?
All right.
Yes, ma'am.
IEN
15:05:41
That's what I read when I reviewed it for the
So that would be inconsistent with your general
DS
Okay.
15:05:19
So again turning to the 542 case, you're
23
A.
24
on with their deputies administratively.
25
Q.
FR
15:05:06
15:06:00
I would expect my sergeants to keep track of what's going
But in this instance, Sergeant Madrid told IA that he did
15:06:14
2655
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
not do so, correct?
A.
I believe that's what I read during the interview.
Q.
All right.
happened in the 542 case, you initially received some sustained
policy violations on both those two allegations against you,
correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you initially were facing a 40-hour suspension without
pay, correct?
Now, looking overall at what ultimately
10
A.
Let me see.
Yes, ma'am, I believe that was 40, too.
11
Q.
So this was a separate 40-hour suspension without pay in
12
addition to the one you were facing in the 543 case, correct?
13
A.
Piling up.
14
Q.
They were piling up.
And again, you went through the predetermination
15
hearing process in the 542 case, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And during that process, Chief Olson reversed all of the
19
sustained findings relating to the allegation about failure to
20
train Armendariz, correct?
21
A.
I believe so.
22
Q.
So the final findings on that allegation were all not
IEN
DS
16
sustained findings, correct?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
But Chief Olson, after the predetermination hearing
FR
23
15:06:34
15:06:46
15:07:02
15:07:18
15:07:25
2656
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
process, maintained some of the sustained findings -- one
moment.
3
4
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
allegation relating to the failure to follow up on the civilian
complaint about the theft of $300, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
He maintained some of the sustained findings on the
But during the pre- -- or through the
10
predetermination hearing process, Chief Olson reduced your
11
discipline from the major discipline of the suspension without
12
pay to the minor discipline of a written reprimand, correct?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
You then filed a grievance to challenge the minor
15
discipline, correct?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
Take a look at Exhibit 2559B.

THE COURT:
18
Ms. Wang, I don't know, in the next five
20
if you can find a good breaking spot.

Sure.
23
Q.
24
making your arguments in the grievance process on the 542 case?
25
A.
FR
15:09:16
BY MS. WANG:
IEN
22
DS
minutes or so we probably want to be taking an afternoon break,
MS. WANG:
15:08:19
15:08:34
19
21
15:07:58
Sir, is that a memorandum that you wrote to Chief Rodriguez
Yes, ma'am.
15:09:29
Q.
All right.
MS. WANG:
2
3
2657
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, I'd move to admit
Exhibit 2559B.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection, Your Honor.
No objection.
2559B is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2559B is admitted into evidence.)
MS. WANG:
10
BY MS. WANG:
11
Q.
12
arguments that your chain of command was responsible for the
13
policy violations, correct?
14
A.
On this investigation?
15
Q.
Correct, on the 542 case.
16
Exhibit 2559B.
17
MELC-IA013646 to 48.
18
Environment in the Human Smuggling Division Created by
19
Chief Sands and Sheriff Arpaio."
20
A.
I see it, ma'am.
21
Q.
And so you made those arguments to Chief Rodriguez,
22
correct?
15:09:54
And, sir, in your memorandum to Chief Rodriguez you made
Take a look at what you wrote in
Under the heading "The Working
15:10:46
DS
IEN
15:10:17
And in particular, at -- take a look at pages
23
A.
24
actual policy violation, but just the atmosphere that was human
25
smuggling at the time.
FR
15:09:40
Yes, not blaming -- not putting responsibility of this
I was base -- I'm painting him the
15:10:59
2658
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
picture of what my life was like there with all the work we had
and only two sergeants.
I'm not blaming anybody for the specific policy
3
4
violation.
I'm just saying the environment that I worked into
was a mitigating factored in everything that we were dealing
with.
Q.
so many demands placed on you to do, for example, saturation
patrols, you did not have the time to adequately deal with a
In other words, you made the argument that because you had
10
deputy like Charley Armendariz?
11
A.
12
this one was that this memo has no signatures.
13
this -- was the money found?
14
investigation actually launch?
15
Q.
16
predetermination hearing process that you had no recollection
17
of ever seeing Sergeant Madrid's memo, correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
To this day, I don't even recall this.
19
Q.
All right.
But in fact, in your interview with PSB
20
investigators, you had said that the complaint about the $300
21
sounded familiar to you, isn't that right?
22
A.
It's just a mitigating factor.
FR
I think the main fact on
I don't know if
Was this purse found?
Did this
DS
Q.
15:11:57
15:12:20
Correct, it sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it.
Okay.
24
25
15:11:36
Now, you told, excuse me, Chief Olson, earlier in the
IEN
23
15:11:17
sorry.
All right.
And after you filed this grievance --
Yes, I'll wrap up after one more question, Your Honor,

15:12:48
2659
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And after you filed this grievance with Chief
1
2
Rodriguez, you ended up having even the written reprimand in
the 542 case rescinded, is that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So you ended up in the final analysis on the 542 case with
no findings of sustained policy violations, correct?
A.
Correct.
MS. WANG:
8
9
All right.
Your Honor, we can break now.
I'm sorry I went on longer than I should have.

THE COURT:
10
That's all right.
15:13:13
We will reconvene at 3:30.
11
MS. WANG:
12
Thank you.
(Recess taken.)
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. WANG:
15
16
17
Please be seated.
May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT:
You may.
MS. WANG:
Thank you.
18
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
20
process on the 542 case with Chief Rodriguez, you had gone
21
through a predetermination hearing with Chief Olson, is that
22
correct?
15:32:56
IEN
DS
So Lieutenant, before you went through the grievance
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And you made a written submission to Chief Olson, correct?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
FR
15:13:00
15:33:06
15:33:20
2660
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
you, I hope.
That should be in front of
Sir, is Exhibit 2898 the memorandum you submitted to
3
4
Chief Olson in connection with your predetermination hearing on
the 542 case?
A.
15:34:16
Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, I'd move to admit Exhibit 2898.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. WALKER:
MR. COMO:
10
THE COURT:
11
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
It's admitted.
15:34:26
12
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
with Chief Olson in both the 542 and 543 cases, correct?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
And basically was the process that you would present your
18
arguments and any facts you wanted to submit and he would
19
listen?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
It was not a question-and-answer format, correct?
22
A.
No, ma'am.
IEN
DS
Now, sir, you went through the predetermination hearing
Q.
24
predetermination hearing, correct?
25
A.
FR
23
15:34:38
15:34:54
And there was no IA investigator present during your
No, ma'am.
15:35:12
2661
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Is it true that as you were finishing up your
predetermination hearing on the 542 case with Chief Olson, he
told you, Hang in there, Joe?
A.
Something to that effect, yes, ma'am.
Q.
Now, during the -- in the predetermination hearing process
you told Chief Olson that you had no recollection of receiving
Sergeant Madrid's memorandum about the complaint of $300 being
stolen, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
But again, previously in your interview with a PSB
11
investigator, you had said that the complaint about the theft
12
of $300 sounded familiar, correct?
13
A.
14
place it with this memo and this purse and coming in from
15
Phoenix PD.
16
Q.
17
complaints about the theft of money during HSU traffic stops?
18
A.
19
property when we made mass arrests.
20
my head once looking for a purse and finding it another under
21
DR.
22
Q.
15:35:44
Yeah, it vaguely sounded familiar, $300, but I couldn't
All right.
15:36:08
Were there a lot of instances where you heard
DS
No, ma'am, but we did have some instances with misplaced
IEN
All right.
I can think off the top of
15:36:25
So when you say that you vaguely remembered a
23
complaint about $300 going missing during a traffic stop, you
24
can't think of any other such complaints that you might have
25
been confusing with this one?
FR
15:35:24
15:36:41
2662
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yeah, I just couldn't place these two together, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
sustained on the one allegation to not sustained, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And in the end, you had no sustained policy violations in
the 542 case, correct?
A.
ma'am.
Q.
Now, Chief Olson again reversed his finding of
Once I grieved to Chief Rodriguez and he rescinded it, yes,
All right.
Now, sir, as a lieutenant, you were ultimately
responsible for follow-through on any civilian complaints
11
against a member of HSU under your command, correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
And you were also responsible for sergeants following
14
through on any civilian complaints that came to their
15
attention, correct?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
That's part of your job as a lieutenant, correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
It is a very serious matter for a civilian to complain that
20
a deputy has stolen money from them during a traffic stop,
21
correct?
22
A.
DS
10
15:37:19
15:37:35
15:37:41
IEN
Absolutely, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
were charged in the 542 case, correct?
25
A.
FR
15:37:00
And you are familiar with the MCSO policies under which you
Yes, ma'am.
15:37:53
2663
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Sir, under those MCSO policies, if a lieutenant is charged
with failing to follow up on a serious civilian complaint of
this nature, is it a valid defense under the policy to argue "I
don't remember that complaint"?
A.
That alone, no, ma'am.
Q.
Now, Sergeant Madrid, to your knowledge, was also a
principal in the 542 case, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And are you aware that he also received no sustained
10
findings in the case?
11
A.
Yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
Sergeant Palmer, we heard testimony in I think April and
13
actually during the trial, too, co-supervised HSU deputies
14
along with Sergeant Madrid, correct?
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
And to your knowledge, he was never charged as a principal
17
in the 542 case, is that correct?
18
A.
19
one.
20
Q.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
21
A.
I don't know the answer to that one.
22
Q.
Okay.
15:38:28
15:38:43
IEN
DS
When it comes to Sergeant Palmer, I wouldn't know on that
15:38:54
You don't know whether Sergeant Palmer was charged
23
as a principal in the 542 case?
24
A.
Reference this particular violation, I don't know, ma'am.
25
Q.
All right.
FR
15:38:14
Well, at all, do you know whether
15:39:05
2664
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sergeant Palmer was charged as a principal at all in the 542
case?
A.
Q.
All right.
case?
A.
interview.
Q.
beginning of that report on all of the principals?
You've seen the report, correct, on the 542
15:39:16
Yes, I reviewed my interview and Sergeant Madrid's
Okay.
The thing was like three inches thick.
And you did not look at the findings at the
10
A.
I don't remember.
11
Q.
All right.
12
third case in which you were a principal, I believe, and that
13
was the 14-541 case.
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
That case was about the mishandling of property by MCSO
16
personnel, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
Now, IA investigators interviewed you in that case,
19
correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
They told you that the 541 case was about statues,
22
trinkets, flags, and something they called carpet shoes.
Fair enough.
I'm going to move on, sir, to the
Were you a principal in that case?
DS
IEN
23
15:39:41
15:39:51
24
A.
25
stuff, yes.
FR
15:39:27
I'm not sure about carpet shoes, but on all the other
15:40:08
2665
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
They did not mention that the case was about more
valuable items such as cash, or television sets, or anything of
that nature, correct?
A.
Q.
Okay.
the transcript of your interview on November 13th, 2014 in the
541 case with Sergeants Fax and Bocchino of PSB.
the first page of that transcript.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
All right.
11
transcript.
12
pagination, top-right corner?
Turn to Exhibit 2806, please.
That exhibit contains
So turn to
And now turn to the third page of that
15:40:49
Do you have the right page now?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am, I see "carpet shoes" on there.
15
Q.
Yeah.
16
investigators told you that the 541 case was about statues,
17
trinkets, flags, carpet shoes?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
All right.
20
about more valuable, high-value items like televisions or cash,
21
correct?
22
A.
So does that refresh your recollection that the IA
15:41:28
DS
And they did not tell you that the 541 case was
15:41:41
IEN
I could be confusing the criminal interview with this
23
interview's probably what I'm doing right now.
24
Q.
25
recollection that in the administrative case, 14-541 in which
FR
15:40:19
Now, do you have page 3 in the internal
Okay.
13
They could have.
Okay.
So looking at Exhibit 2806, does that refresh your

15:41:59
2666
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
you were a principal, IA described the case as being about
statues, trinkets, flags, and carpet shoes.
A.
I guess I'm going to have to review this --
Q.
Sure, take your time.
A.
-- so I can answer the question.
Q.
Go ahead.
A.
Sorry.
Q.
That's all right.
A.
On page 2, ma'am, he does mention TV, line 60.
10
Q.
And were you familiar with the fact that Cisco Perez had
11
made an allegation that a TV had been pocketed?
12
A.
13
TV and was pocketing things, using that term.
14
Q.
15
that a TV had been pocketed?
16
A.
I believe so.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
told you in the administrative 541 case, did you understand
19
that they were looking at -- or focused on issues relating to
20
statues, trinkets, and identification documents?
21
A.
I remember all that being asked, yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
Okay.
15:42:49
I was familiar that he made the allegation that HSU took a
And were you aware that one of his allegations was
IEN
15:43:11
Based on what the Internal Affairs investigators
DS
Right.
15:43:30
Did they ask you about any stolen cash in the 541
23
case?
24
A.
I don't recall.
25
Q.
You don't recall that happening?
FR
15:42:14
15:43:42
2667
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't recall them asking.
Q.
Okay.
was an MCSO policy that permitted deputies to keep items that
they found during operations if they followed certain steps.
Now, during your IA interview you told IA that there
Do you recall that?
5
6
A.
Correct.
Q.
All right.
that the name for that policy is the diversion policy?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
And you had never heard the term "diversion policy" before
11
your interview in this case?
12
A.
No, ma'am.
13
Q.
You were just familiar with it generally.
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
interview that you might have seen stacks of identification
17
documents around the HSU offices, correct?
18
A.
I don't recall that, ma'am.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
internal pagination would be page 13, and just read that page
21
to yourself.
22
A.
And you learned from IA during your interview
You also told Internal Affairs during your 541
15:44:17
15:44:28
DS
Turn in that document, Exhibit 2806, to page -- the
15:44:53
IEN
What page?
23
Q.
24
and the bottom-right corner, pagination is MELC228198.
25
A.
FR
15:44:09
It's the internal pagination on the top-right corner is 13,
Yes, ma'am.
15:45:21
2668
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
All right.
you're ready.
So just read that to yourself, let me know when
THE WITNESS:
Yes, ma'am.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
there may have been stacks of IDs around HSU?
A.
arresting people, they got -- make mass arrests, they're taking
15:46:24
Does that refresh your recollection that you told IA that
I believe what I'm saying here, ma'am, is when they're
10
the IDs for identification, and I go on to say I would expect
11
those IDs to stay with the people unless they were fraudulent,
12
and then we would take them.
13
Q.
14
down -- while you were the commander of HSU, there were often
15
operations where there were mass arrests of people, 40, 50 or
16
more people, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And during the processing of those people, HSU personnel
19
would gather up their identification documents, correct?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
22
correct?
So is it fair to say that -- let me break this
IEN
DS
Okay.
15:46:51
15:47:03
And those might have been in HSU's offices,
23
A.
24
them up for identification purposes, yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
FR
15:46:39
During the course of the investigation, they would gather
Okay.
And you told that to IA, correct?
15:47:14
2669
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
you commanded HSU, you set up lockers for the storage of
property and evidence seized by HSU personnel, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you appointed Deputy Cosme to be the custodian of those
lockers, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And prior to your setting up those lockers, HSU had been
Now, you also told IA that at some point while
15:47:31
10
keeping property and evidence in a closet in the office,
11
correct?
12
A.
13
attention.
14
having evidence lockers.
15
Q.
16
property and evidence in a closet was not consistent with how
17
the Patrol Division handled property and evidence?
18
A.
I believe that's what I remembered at the time.
19
Q.
All right.
20
understood that that was how the patrol districts handled
21
property and evidence?
22
A.
I believe when I noticed that it was brought to my
I tried to get in line with the patrol districts
And so you were aware that HSU's practice of keeping
15:47:53
DS
So you set up the lockers because you
15:48:11
IEN
Yes, ma'am.
23
Q.
24
541 case, the Internal Affairs investigators asked you whether
25
you were aware of any issues with the contents of those lockers
FR
15:47:43
Do you recall that during that during your interview in the
15:48:26
2670
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
at HSU not being cleared out on a timely basis and things
transferred over Property and Evidence?
A.
overnight use.
you come back in, you gotta get it over to Property and
Evidence.
Q.
that policy, correct?
A.
I can't remember that.
10
Q.
Yeah, take a look at -- take a look at page 18.
I think so.
Those lockers were supposed to be strictly for
If you're working a 20-hour shift, the next day
And IA asked you whether there were any deviations from
My question was:
11
Is that in here?
any issues with the property not being removed in a timely --
13
on a timely basis from those lockers?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
All right.
16
issues, is that right?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
interview in the 541 case, told you that he had discovered in
20
his interviews of other HSU personnel that at HSU there was a
21
practice that detention officers would handle all of the
22
property or evidence seized during operations?
And you said you were not aware of any such
15:49:24
Now, do you recall that Sergeant Fax, during this
DS
IEN
15:48:57
Did IA ask you whether there were
12
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And do you recall that -- well, did you get the impression
25
from Sergeant Fax's questions that the Internal Affairs
FR
15:48:45
15:49:44
15:50:09
division felt it was a problem for detention officers as
opposed to deputies to handle that task?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
MS. WANG:
4
5
2671
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
The question is whether he had that
impression.
15:50:29
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
7
8
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
All right.
I didn't get that sense, ma'am.
Did he ask you whether you felt that deputies,
10
not detention officers, should handle the disposition of
11
property and evidence?
12
A.
I don't remember him asking me that, ma'am.
13
Q.
All right.
14
during your IA interview in the 541 case that Sergeant
15
Trowbridge told you -- I'm sorry.
Do you recall whether Sergeant Fax informed you
Withdrawn.
17
interview that Sergeant Trowbridge was the one who told him
18
that at HSU, detention officers were the ones who handled the
19
disposition of property and evidence after operations?
THE WITNESS:
23
Q.
24
interview.
FR
25
15:51:43
I don't remember that, ma'am.
BY MS. WANG:
IEN
22
MR. POPOLIZIO:
DS
21
15:51:23
Do you recall Sergeant Fax telling you in the 541
16
20
15:50:42
Okay.
Take a look at page 15 in the transcript of your 541
THE COURT:
I'm just going to remind you,
15:51:51
2672
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Lieutenant Sousa, that when an objection is made by your
counsel, you need to wait until I can rule on the objection
before you answer.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
6
7
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Are you finished?
A.
Oh, yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
Sorry about that.
11
sir, that Sergeant Fax of PSB told you that Sergeant Trowbridge
12
had been the one to tell him that DOs, detention officers, were
13
the ones handling the disposition of property?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
And do you recall that Sergeant Fax told you that
16
Trowbridge's view was deputies should be the one to do that?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
And you did not recall ever hearing about that from
19
Sergeant Trowbridge?
20
A.
Didn't recall, ma'am.
21
Q.
Do you recall that you told the IA investigators during
22
this interview in the 541 case that you had been informed at
I'm sorry.
Does that refresh your recollection,
DS
IEN
some point while commanding HSU that ICE told you that HSU
24
personnel were not properly handling evidence and property?
FR
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15:54:12
15:54:26
15:54:41
23
25
15:52:02
Objection, hearsay.
15:55:04
THE COURT:
Let me look at the question again.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
2673
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And foundation, Your Honor.
Well, she's only recall -- asking him
whether he recalled what he told IA investigators, so I'm going
to overrule the objection as to foundation and I'm not --
Are you asking for the truth of the matter asserted?
MS. WANG:
MS. WANG:
What are you asking for?
I'm asking to find out what was conveyed to
the Internal Affairs division, to PSB.

THE COURT:
11
All right.
THE WITNESS:
12
13
look.
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
the last paragraph.
15:55:35
I'll allow it.
I have to
Turn to the previous page, page 14 of the transcript, and
paragraphs.
It continues on to the first paragraph of page 15.
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
All right.
22
A.
Yes, ma'am.
IEN
DS
20
All right.
15:56:36
Does that refresh your recollection that --
23
Q.
24
that you had heard from ICE that HSU deputies were -- had an
25
issue with handling property during the booking process?
FR
15:55:43
Actually, start with line 610, so read those two
17
18
No, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
10
15:55:26
Did you tell the Internal Affairs investigator
15:56:50
2674
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Based on what I read here, ma'am, I think I ended this when
I was spitballing, because I knew ICE had -- would always call
me when we had the 287(g) program and we had a liaison, about
whether it be booking issues or property issue.
sure here because I believe I ended with this.
spitballing here.
Q.
What did you mean by "I'm just spitballing"?
A.
'Cause I just have vague memories of these issues dealing
with ICE and the ICE liaison about it.
But I can't be
I'm just
10
Q.
And you told IA investigators in the 541 case that you had
11
a vague recollection that ICE may have reported to you
12
mishandling of property by HSU deputies?
13
A.
14
were 287(g) we would actually book under their systems, under
15
the federal systems, and a lot of it was paperwork related,
16
from what I remember.
17
have had a mishandling of a property issue, too.
18
Q.
19
investigator.
20
A.
21
trying to be just completely as forward as I could, so I had
22
vague memories, I just threw them on the table.
24
FR
25
All right.
And you reported that to the Internal Affairs
I believe that's what I'm trying to say here.
Thank you.
Okay.
15:57:45
But I'm sure during that time I would
DS
Q.
15:57:23
I believe when we would -- when we'd book under -- when we
IEN
23
15:57:10
I was just
15:57:58
I appreciate that.
Now, in this 541 case, you initially had,
again, findings of sustained, correct?
15:58:13
2675
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you were facing again major discipline, this time an
80-hour suspension without pay, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
All right, sir.
Did you go through the
predetermination hearing process on the 541 case as well?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And that was with Chief Lopez, correct?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
All right.
12
submitted to him as part of the predetermination hearing?
13
A.
15:59:02
And is Exhibit 2561 the memorandum you
Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG:
14
Your Honor, I'd ask to admit Exhibit 2561.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
MR. WALKER:
16
MR. COMO:
17
THE COURT:
18
No objection.
15:59:16
No objection.
2561 is admitted.
19
BY MS. WANG:
21
Q.
22
acknowledged that you knew Deputy Rangel of HSU had a religious
DS
20
IEN
All right.
15:59:28
Now, sir, in your memorandum to Chief Lopez you
23
shrine in the HSU office, correct?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
And you know sitting here now, or actually you knew at the
FR
15:58:22
15:59:41
2676
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
time you went through the IA case, that in fact, Deputy Rangel
had obtained those items in the religious shrine during an HSU
operation, correct?
A.
know the answer.
came from the drop house, nobody ever told me.
Q.
in the HSU office, you thought that it was personal property,
correct?
In all honesty, ma'am, as we sit here right now, I don't
All right.
I don't know if he purchased that nor or it
Well, at the time you saw that religious shrine
10
A.
11
first thing I thought is:
12
religious shrine at work.
13
Q.
14
a training aid, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
And you told that to Chief Lopez in your memorandum,
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
All right.
20
Mexico to use as a training aid, is that correct?
I don't think you can have a
16:00:32
He said that he had bought this shrine in
16:00:40
Deputy Rangel told you that, correct?
A.
I don't remember asking him that, if he bought -- I
23
believe -- I believe in this memoranda it was I don't know if
24
he bought it.
25
Q.
FR
16:00:14
And Deputy Rangel told you that he was using the shrine as
IEN
22
The only reason I remember that is when I saw that, the
DS
21
16:00:00
I beg your pardon.
You're right.
16:00:57
2677
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yeah.
Q.
I'm sorry.
went down to Mexico and could have purchased them there.
You actually wrote:
Deputy Rangel routinely
Is that what you told Chief Lopez?
4
5
A.
Correct.
Q.
All right.
reimbursement request for that work-related expense?
A.
Not that I know of.
Q.
You also argued to Chief Lopez during your predetermination
10
16:01:08
Did Deputy Rangel ever ask -- submit a
hearing that you did not receive training that -- withdrawn.

You also argued to Chief Lopez in your
11
12
predetermination hearing that you never received training on
13
how you should inspect HSU's offices, is that correct?
14
A.
15
inspections routinely now, and people have personal items, and
16
it's almost impossible to tell, when someone is displaying a
17
personal idol, anything can be property; anything can be
18
evidence.
That's correct, based on what we're doing now.
I do
16:01:45
So when I wrote that, I think there should be some
19
guidelines in when we're going to question people and when
21
we're not going to question people, or we should just put a
22
rule that you can't display personal items at work.
IEN
DS
20
23
Q.
24
that Internal Affairs was supposed to do random searches of
25
MCSO offices but never did so, correct?
FR
16:01:25
16:02:04
You also argued to Chief Lopez that your understanding was
16:02:20
2678
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
The old IA policy, they were responsible for doing site
inspections.
Q.
of HSU, IA did not do those searches, correct?
A.
whole career, that I know of.
Q.
arguments -- in the 541 case you also stated to IA that the
chain -- your chain of command had ordered HSU to do certain
And you told Chief Lopez that while you were the commander
They've never done a search at any place I've worked in my
Now, in the 541 case, you also made the case in your
things for political reasons, correct?
11
A.
My assumption, yes, ma'am.
12
Q.
And those were the same arguments we've already talked
13
about in the 542 and the 543 cases, correct?
14
A.
Correct, ma'am.
15
Q.
And, sir, did you tell Internal Affairs in the 541 case
16
that you were directed by your chain of command to come up with
17
a protocol to arrest illegal aliens after the 287(g) agreement
18
was terminated?
19
A.
I don't recall that.
20
Q.
The environment that was created.
16:03:28
Is that in here?
Sorry, 2806.
16:03:53
Sergeant Fax and Sergeant Bocchino, at page 22.
23
Start reading at about line --
24
A.
Oh, I haven't found it, ma'am.
25
Q.
Oh, okay.
FR
16:03:15
Again, that was the transcript of your interview with
IEN
22
DS
10
21
16:02:34
I'm sorry.
16:04:28
A.
2679
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'm still looking.

2806?
2
3
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
your interview with Sergeant Fax.
966.
A.
966?
Q.
Yes.
10
A.
I remember now, ma'am.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
the IA investigators in the 541 case that your chain of command
13
ordered you to come up with a protocol to arrest illegal aliens
14
after the 287(g) agreement was terminated?
Start reading at about line
16:05:45
So does that refresh your recollection that you told
MR. COMO:
16
Objection, relevance as to time frame.
16:06:03
Object to the form of the question; also as
to the vague expression "chain of command."

THE COURT:
18
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
19
287(g).
21
BY MS. WANG:
22
Q.
DS
20
IEN
All right.
Yes, ma'am.
This is when we lost the
16:06:16
And you did -- that was your testimony?
23
sorry, that was your statement to the IA investigators?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
And it was true, correct?
FR
16:04:43
Read to the end of that paragraph.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
17
Take a look at page 22 of that transcript of
I'm
16:06:24
2680
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
originally facing an 80-hour suspension without pay, ultimately
you got that reduced to minor discipline, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
A written reprimand?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you then filed a grievance to overturn the minor
discipline of the written reprimand, correct?
Now, in the 541 case, though you were
16:06:39
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And you were successful in that effort, correct?

I'm sorry.
12
16:06:52
You did get Chief Sheridan to rescind the
original written reprimand, is that correct?
14
A.
Yes, ma'am.
15
Q.
But he reissued it with new language, is that right?
16
A.
Yes, ma'am.
17
Q.
And that was in response to the grievance process, is that
18
right?
19
A.
Correct, ma'am.
20
Q.
21
A.
I'll just look at it up here.
22
Q.
Yeah, there are three pages, so go ahead.
IEN
DS
13
16:07:13
And let
23
Mr. Klein know when you're ready to turn the page.
24
A.
I'm ready.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
16:07:05
16:07:54
2681
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Turn the page.
Q.
Next page.
A.
Next one.
Yes, ma'am.
4
5
Q.
All right.
Sir, is Exhibit 2008 the result of your
grievance process in the 541 case and the revised written
reprimand in that case?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG:
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
MR. WALKER:
11
MR. COMO:
12
THE COURT:
13
16:08:47
No objection.
No objection.
2008 is admitted.
14
MS. WANG:
15
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
also interviewed in a criminal IA case that was also about the
19
mishandling of evidence and property, is that right?
20
A.
Yes, ma'am.
21
Q.
And Sergeant Tennyson interviewed you in connection with
22
that criminal case, correct?
16:08:58
IEN
DS
Now, sir, you've mentioned a little while ago that you were
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And you heard that that case, again, involved Cisco Perez's
25
allegations about pocketing items at HSU, correct?
FR
16:08:31
16:09:09
16:09:23
2682
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Now, you've been sitting here in the courtroom throughout
this hearing, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Do you recall when Mr. Masterson asked Chief Sheridan --
well, he took issue with my questions to Chief Sheridan about
TVs in the plural.
Do you recall that?
8
9
A.
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q.
All right.
11
allegation made by Cisco Perez involved the seizure of a
12
62-inch flat-screen TV?
13
A.
I believe Sergeant Tennyson asked that question.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
that there was a very large flat-screen TV that had been
16
pocketed, correct?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
All right.
19
TVs during operations while you were in command?
20
A.
No, ma'am.
21
Q.
Would it surprise you to find documentation in HSU's
22
records that other televisions were seized by HSU?
Now, did you hear that the case -- or the
16:10:05
Now, sir, are you aware that HSU seized other
DS
IEN
16:09:43
So you were aware that Perez had been -- had said
23
A.
24
get a TV as I sit here.
25
Q.
FR
16:09:31
16:10:21
I don't recall us ever going to the diversion program to
Okay.
The question is just whether you know of other TVs
16:10:39
being seized, not whether TVs went through the diversion
program.
A.
Not that I know of, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
Let me ask you first:
2683
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
As HSU commander, you reviewed
departmental reports made by HSU personnel, correct?
A.
On rare occasions, yes.
Q.
Okay.
personnel who were in HSU, correct?
And you were familiar with the names of HSU
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
And you were familiar with the general format of
12
departmental reports, is that correct?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
a supplemental report, DR number 12-131459.
16
date is 2-27-13.
17
A.
That's what I have in my hand, ma'am.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
appears to you to be consistent with the format for
20
departmental reports and supplements made by HSU while you were
21
commander.
22
A.
So take a look at Exhibit 2916.
16:11:25
This appears to be
The occurrence
16:11:40
DS
Take a look at this document and let me know if this
16:12:01
IEN
This seems consistent with the supplement report being
23
written for someone who's actually taking the main report.
24
Q.
25
that says "Investigator D. Ochoa S1802"?
FR
16:11:04
Okay.
And do you see down at the bottom there's a footer

16:12:43
2684
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Do you recognize that name?
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Do you recall a Deputy Ochoa or an Officer Ochoa assigned
to HSU?
A.
Not when I was there.
Q.
Okay.
HSU, correct?
A.
I was in SWAT.
10
Q.
I'm sorry?
11
A.
In SWAT.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
is not what it appears to be, a supplemental report?
16:12:55
As of February 27th, 2013, you were in command of
Oh, you were at SWAT already.
Do you have any reason to believe that this document
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
MR. WALKER:
15
THE COURT:
16
Join.
16:13:23
Well, I'll allow him to answer that
17
question.
18
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
20
looking at this document, that it is not what it appears to be?
21
A.
22
report without a face cover should still have the initials of a
DS
Is there any reason -- do you have any reason to believe,
16:13:36
IEN
It's consistent with a supplement report, but a supplement
23
sergeant.
24
here.
25
Q.
FR
16:13:11
Okay.
It should still get reviewed, and I don't see that
16:13:49
MS. WANG:
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
6
7
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
I'm going to sustain the objection.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
2685
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Hearsay.
On foundation grounds.
All right.
Sir, when you were interviewed -- withdrawn.
You were initially contacted in connection with the
criminal IA investigation into mishandling of property by
11
Sergeant Tennyson, correct?
12
A.
Yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
He called you on the telephone to tell you that he needed
14
to interview you, correct?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
And he asked to schedule a time for that interview,
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes, ma'am.
19
Q.
And you spontaneously responded on the telephone, "How
20
about right now?" correct?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
He agreed to do that, right?
IEN
DS
10
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
And you immediately walked over to his office, correct?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
FR
16:14:03
16:14:24
16:14:37
16:14:44
16:14:51
2686
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
You did not have time to prepare for the interview,
correct?
A.
I didn't feel I needed to.
Q.
Well, you did nothing to prepare for the interview,
correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And he did not have time to prepare between the time that
he contacted you and the time that you arrived in his office,
correct?
16:15:00
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
11
BY MS. WANG:
12
Q.
Do you know?
13
THE COURT:
14
If you know.
THE WITNESS:
15
Just an assumption that I would think
16
you would need some time to prepare for it.
17
BY MS. WANG:
18
Q.
19
office after you hung up the phone with him?
20
A.
Under a minute.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
Tennyson in the criminal IA case was very quick, correct?
16:15:31
IEN
DS
And how long did it take to get from your office to his
16:15:42
And the interview that you had with Sergeant
23
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
All he asked you was, "Have you ever heard the term
25
'pocketed' before?" correct?
FR
16:15:09
16:15:59
2687
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
That was one of a few questions.
Q.
All right.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you responded, "I've never heard that term.
TV or something.
office," is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And you don't recall any other questions that he asked you,
do you?
Well, he asked you that question, correct?
Maybe on a
I never heard the term 'pocketed' at the
10
A.
As I sit here I don't, but he asked me more questions.
11
Q.
How many more questions did he ask you?
12
A.
I can't remember.
13
to 10 minutes, and that could be wrong, but it was quick.
14
Q.
15
mind from that seven to 10 minute interview was:
16
ever heard the term 'pocketed' before?"
17
A.
That sticks out in my mind.
18
Q.
All right.
19
cases that have come about since Charley Armendariz died,
20
correct?
21
A.
Yes, ma'am.
22
Q.
And other than what you have been told as a principal in
So the only question that sticks out in your

"Have you
IEN
16:16:42
Now, you are aware that there have been many IA
23
the 541, 542, and 543 cases, no one has reached out to you
24
about other IA cases that involved HSU activities while you
25
were the commander, is that correct?
FR
16:16:25
I think the interview was, like, seven
DS
All right.
16:16:16
16:17:01
16:17:18
2688
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
No one has reached out to you to counsel you about any
supervision issues relating to your time as commander of HSU,
is that correct?
A.
person.
Q.
investigators in the 14-221 case, do you recall that?
what's been called the death investigation on Charley
Outside of the written reprimand, no one's reached out in
Sir, you were also interviewed by the Internal Affairs
10
Armendariz?
11
A.
I only remember the three, ma'am.
12
Q.
Okay.
Well, actually, let's -- let's see.
That's the one
14
that had the cover sheet that says "Items shown to
15
Lieutenant Sousa during his interview."
And turn to page MELC-IA012359.
16
That's
16:17:53
Take a look again at Exhibit 2802.
13
16:18:36
That appears to be
17
the first page of a transcript of your interview in the 14-221
18
case.
19
A.
I'm there, ma'am.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
I've given you the wrong exhibit.
DS
Just a moment.
I apologize.
I'm sorry, Lieutenant.
Why don't you turn back to Exhibit 2806.
IEN
22
16:19:12
That was the
23
one we were looking at previously that had the transcript of
24
your interview with Sergeant Fax in the 541 case.
25
page MELC228216.
FR
16:17:32
And turn to
That's towards the end of that exhibit, 2806.
16:19:53
2689
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
It appears to be an interview that Sergeant Tennyson did with
you in the 14-221 case.
Are you there?
A.
Page 2 on top?
Q.
It starts with page 1, and the number down at the bottom
right-hand corner should be MELC228216.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
Sergeant Tennyson interviewed you in the 14-221 case?
Now, does that refresh your recollection that
10
A.
11
criminal interview.
12
Q.
13
at the header on the right -- upper-right-hand corner.
14
was an interview in the 14-221 case.
15
A.
Yes, says 221.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
regardless of the number, do you recall this interview with
18
Sergeant Tennyson?
19
A.
20
him on the criminal matter.
21
Q.
It seems like the same interview, the
So this was actually -- does it appear to you, look

This
Do you see that?
16:21:51
So do you recall now that -- well, in any event,
DS
Okay.
Okay.
16:22:10
Thank you.
Turn to page 2 of this transcript.
23
Sergeant Tennyson gave you a Miranda warning?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
All right.
FR
16:20:34
I believe this is the same, the one interview I had with
IEN
22
I'm reviewing this.
Okay.
16:20:18
Do you see that
Read that page, and my question to you is:
Did
16:22:25
2690
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
you have the sense from what Sergeant Tennyson was saying that
he felt bad about Mirandizing you?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
I -- I remem- -- I know what -- I
16:22:58
remember when he did his interview and he started his interview
he tried to put me at ease, and he said something to the
fact -- he kind of told me what was going on and said something
to the fact, I don't be- -- we don't believe you guys did any
10
of this, or this didn't happen, something to that effect.
11
I just remember that.
12
me back, so --
13
BY MS. WANG:
14
Q.
15
sense that he felt bad or was being apologetic about giving you
16
a Miranda warning?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And take a look at pages 6 and 7 of this transcript.
19
reading at about line 257 of page 6, continuing -- well, just
20
read from page 2 -- line 257 of page 6 to the end of that page.
16:23:26
Start
16:23:55
Have you read line 257, page 6, to the end
23
A.
I'm sorry, ma'am.
24
Q.
That's okay.
25
you a question about page 6.
FR
Did you have the
of page 6?
IEN
22
All right.
16:23:16
I don't have to read it 'cause it took
And again, my question is:
DS
21
All right.
And
I went too far.
Read whatever you like.
But I'm going to ask

16:24:59
2691
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I just read it, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
Sergeant Tennyson, in his interview of you in the criminal
case, as you've described it, apologize for asking you
questions?
A.
Yes, ma'am, he seemed uncomfortable.
Q.
And turning to the next page -- well, to page 8 of this
transcript, did he tell you that he thought the interview was a
waste of your time?
And my question to you, Lieutenant, is:
Did
16:25:16
10
A.
That's what it says, ma'am.
11
Q.
Sir, based on what you heard from Sergeant Tennyson during
12
this interview in the 14-221 case, did you get the impression
13
that he felt sorry about interviewing you?
14
A.
15
my concern, if I remember correctly when I left that interview,
16
is kind of, Why's he saying these things, 'cause it makes him
17
look unbiased?
18
Q.
Makes him look biased?
19
A.
Unbiased.
20
seriously.
21
Q.
22
interview?
Ma'am, when I left that interview, I don't think I was --
16:26:10
Makes him look like he's not taking it
DS
16:26:24
IEN
That was the impression you got from him during the
23
A.
24
spoke to my captain about it.
25
interviewed, and he opened it up with, I don't think you guys
FR
16:25:40
Yeah.
As a matter of fact, when I left my interview, I

And I even said, Hey, he just
16:26:34
2692
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
did any of this, and I just -- that sticks out, and I was
concerned that he would have made that statement when he
interviewed.
I was thinking:
Q.
I understand he was trying to put me at ease, but

I don't want to do this again.
And you did not -- well, withdrawn.
Sir, I'm going to wrap up with just a couple more
6
7
questions.
and 543 cases of the evidence in those IA proceedings, correct?
A.
We're talking about the supervision of Armendariz --
10
Q.
-- in the preliminary injunction.
11
A.
And did anybody brief me on the overall subject?
12
Q.
Well, not -- were you presented with evidence in those two
13
cases?
14
A.
During those interviews they showed me documents.
15
Q.
All right.
16
also made observations that related to the issues in those two
17
cases, correct?
18
order and supervision issues relating to Charley Armendariz, is
19
that right?
20
A.
Are we talking about the mitigating factors?
21
Q.
Sure.
22
A.
Yes, ma'am.
You were made aware at some point during the 542
And during your time as commander of HSU, you
DS
IEN
All right.
Q.
24
observed to the IA investigators, correct?
25
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16:27:22
16:27:36
The violations of the preliminary injunction
23
FR
16:26:50
16:28:00
And you presented that information that you had
16:28:09
2693
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing
Q.
And, sir, you believed that there were people in your chain
of command who were responsible for policy violations in the
542 and 543 cases, correct?
A.
Smuggling played a role in some of what happened in Human
Smuggling.
Q.
sustained in the 543 case on the preliminary injunction
violations, correct?
I believe the environment that was created in Human
And, sir, you are aware that no one received a finding of
10
A.
I believe that's what I heard, ma'am.
11
Q.
And you heard that on what you described as the rumor mill
12
at MCSO, correct?
13
A.
16:28:46
Yes, ma'am.
MS. WANG:
14
THE COURT:
15
Thank you.
I have nothing further for you.
Mr. Popolizio.
16:29:01
CROSS-EXAMINATION
16
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
Q.
Good afternoon, Lieutenant.
19
A.
Good afternoon, sir.
20
Q.
I'm going to jump around a little bit and I apologize for
21
that, but do you remember earlier this afternoon when you were
22
answering Ms. Wang's questions there was a line of testimony
IEN
DS
17
23
regarding a conversation that you had with Sheriff Arpaio when
24
he purportedly pointed at the building, this building?
25
A.
FR
16:28:30
Yes, sir.
16:29:30
16:29:56
2694
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And he said something to the effect that, "He's watching us
right now," do you recall that?
A.
Something to the effect.
Q.
Okay.
occurred in 2014 at the deputy memorial?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And where did you bump into Sheriff Arpaio?
10
A.
I believe I was going up for an interview.
11
Q.
An interview going up where?
12
A.
Headquarters.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
A.
I believe Sheriff Arpaio initiated the conversation.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
say to you?
17
A.
18
with the monitors and we're going to try to get all this stuff
19
in compliant," something to that effect.
20
Q.
21
case, the Melendres versus Arpaio case?
22
A.
24
FR
25
A few weeks later did you bump into Sheriff Arpaio?
16:30:33
Was it at headquarters?
When you bumped into him, did you speak with him?
And when he initiated that conversation, what did he
And did you take that to refer to the monitors in this
DS
Q.
16:30:16
16:30:49
He said something to the fact, "Hey, Joe, we're cooperating
16:31:05
Yes, sir.
IEN
23
Lieutenant Sousa, that happened, that conversation
And the orders of this Court in that case?

MS. WANG:
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Objection, leading.
16:31:17
2695
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
What did you believe -- what did you think he meant by that
comment, Lieutenant Sousa?
A.
this Court.
Q.
that.
I believe he was referring to the orders of this case, of
At any time did Sheriff Arpaio ever order you -- or strike
At any time did Sheriff Arpaio ever tell you not to
7
8
comply with any order of this Court?
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
Now, also during Ms. Wang's questioning of you, you talked
11
about a conversation that you had with the chief deputy.
13
A.
Yes, sir.
14
Q.
And you described the chief deputy as looking overwhelmed.

Do you recall that?
15
16:32:01
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
And do you recall testifying that he said something to the
18
effect of he didn't know how he was going to get all this done.
MS. WANG:
19
THE COURT:
23
24
FR
25
16:32:18
MR. POPOLIZIO:
IEN
22
Objection, leading, and mischaracterizes
the testimony.
DS
21
16:31:44
Do you recall that?
12
20
16:31:29
I asked him if he recalled.
What?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
I asked him if he recalled, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
It's still leading.
Sustained.
16:32:25
2696
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
you that he wasn't going to comply with the Court's orders?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Did he ever tell you that he was not -- he did not intend
to get everything done as ordered by the Court?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
In fact, a little while after -- well, strike that.
When you spoke with Chief Deputy Sheridan, did he ever tell
After the 2014 deputy memorial, was there a meeting
9
10
that you attended that the chief deputy called?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
What was that meeting?
13
A.
It was on short notice.
14
had to go up to headquarters to speak with the chief deputy.
15
Q.
Do you know why that meeting was called?
16
A.
Chief Sheridan was upset that the districts were not
17
complying in getting the shift rosters complete and done
18
accurately like this Court wanted.
19
Q.
20
meeting?
21
A.
22
believed that we should be already in compliance and was
16:33:13
All the captains and lieutenants
16:33:30
DS
Do you remember anything else that was discussed in that
16:33:49
IEN
I believe Chief Sheridan brought other items that he
23
demanding that his captains and lieutenants make sure it gets
24
done.
25
in compliance by.
FR
16:32:43
And I remember he also set a date that he wanted to be

16:34:08
2697
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
In compliance with what?
A.
This Court's order.
Q.
And do you recall the general time frame when that meeting
occurred?
A.
memorial.
Q.
While that's in 2014, April?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
Do you know anything about Sergeant Palmer's doing some
I want to say a month, month and a half after the deputy
10
legal research at one time?
11
A.
Vaguely, I heard that.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
I can't remember which chief called him and asked him to do
14
it.
15
Q.
16
with regard to the preliminary injunction in this case?
17
A.
Sergeant Palmer.
18
Q.
Did you ask him to do any legal research?
19
A.
No.
20
Q.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you -- I believe you testified
21
earlier that when you received some training scenarios from
22
Sergeant Palmer, you glossed over them.
DS
Now, who did you select to draw up the training scenarios
IEN
16:34:41
Do you know who he did legal research for?
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
You looked at those scenarios?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
FR
16:34:17
16:34:59
16:35:13
16:35:43
2698
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Was there anyone that you had in mind when you looked at
those scenarios that you thought should analyze the scenarios
that Sergeant Palmer presented you?
A.
Our attorney, Tim Casey.
Q.
And why would that be?
A.
Because I wanted a lawyer's opinion to ensure that we were
in compliance with the judge's ruling.
Q.
your men?
Did you send the entire preliminary injunction order to
10
A.
I don't recall doing that, sir.
11
Q.
How long have you been a lieutenant?
12
A.
I've been a lieutenant approximately 11, 12 years now.
13
Q.
And at the time of the issuance of the preliminary
14
injunction order in this case, how long had you been a
15
lieutenant, if you know?
16
A.
Seven, eight years.
17
Q.
And how long had you been the lieutenant at HSU?
18
A.
Just under five years.
19
Q.
Given your experience as a lieutenant, and a lieutenant
20
over HSU, do you think sending the entire preliminary
21
injunction order to your men would have been the best approach
22
to take?
IEN
DS
Do the math.
23
A.
Back then, no.
24
Q.
Why?
25
A.
'Cause most of them are not going to understand all the
FR
16:36:02
16:36:19
16:36:42
16:37:02
16:37:21
2699
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
legal jargon.
Q.
Do you know how long that preliminary injunction order was?
A.
If I remember correctly, 40 pages or so.
Q.
Do you remember answering some questions about the ICE/LEAR
protocol earlier this afternoon?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
I believe that was Exhibit 2856.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
8
9
Honor?
THE COURT:
10
THE COURT:
13
you know.
You need another chair?

Nah, I'm good.
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
DS
IEN
You all right to proceed?
THE COURT:
Oh, yes, sir.
I'm good.
16:38:49
Please do so.
We need to contact Property.
23
Go ahead.
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE COURT:
FR
It ended up being the
counter, just letting you know.
19
22
I just broke your chair, just letting
16:38:40
THE WITNESS:
17
It's admitted.
Sorry.
THE COURT:
16
21
16:38:29
Yeah.
THE WITNESS:
14
20
Sure.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
18
Can I show that to the witness, Your
I believe we did introduce that, didn't we?
11
15
16:38:10
Yes.
May I publish the -16:38:58
2700
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Is it 2056 or 2856.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
3
4
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
2856.
That's what I thought, thanks.
Do you see that on your screen?

Do you see that?
6
7
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
Lieutenant Sousa?
And the date of this document is what,
10
A.
8-18-2009.
11
Q.
At the time of this preliminary injunction order, was this,
12
to your knowledge, the policy that was in effect?
13
A.
I don't believe so.
14
Q.
Thank you.
16:39:55
You can take it off.
Let's turn to the subject of videos and Deputy
15
Armendariz, okay?
17
traffic stops?
18
A.
Yes, I did.
19
Q.
And about what time did you do that?
20
A.
Roughly three or four months before I transferred out.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
A.
Because my sergeants were getting really frustrated with
IEN
16:40:34
Did you order Deputy Armendariz to video his
DS
16
16:40:54
And why did you do that?
23
him getting complaints, and I was going to actually get
24
involved myself with looking at every single complaint that
25
came in from that point forward.
FR
16:39:43
16:41:10
2701
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And what did you tell Deputy Armendariz about how you would
approach those videos?
A.
That I would review them for policy violations.
Q.
Okay.
A.
It was never my intention to review them all.
Q.
Okay.
A.
At the time, we just didn't have a policy on videotaping,
or doing video.
Q.
But would you review any of those videos?
10
A.
I would review the ones if they, from that point forward,
11
if there was a complaint.
12
Q.
13
that correct?
14
A.
The two I can remember.
15
Q.
Could there have been more that you just don't remember?
16
A.
There could have been; those are the two I remember.
17
Q.
Is there a policy at MCSO that you can't have religious
18
artifacts in your working space?
19
A.
20
saw those artifacts, that's what I thought.
21
Q.
When you saw what artifacts?
22
A.
The statues and candles.
And would you review all of them?
And why not?
16:41:42
And you did review videos associated with complaints, is
IEN
16:42:01
I don't remember looking that up, but when I
DS
I'm not sure.
23
Q.
24
personal working spaces throughout your career at MCSO?
25
A.
FR
16:41:27
16:43:03
Have you ever seen anyone have religious artifacts at
Not a shrine.
16:43:20
2702
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
But personal artifacts?
A.
I'm pretty sure I've seen somebody with a little -- maybe a
statue or a little crucifix, but not a shrine.
Q.
Would it be appropriate for you to question them about it?
A.
I would feel uncomfortable.
Q.
Why?
A.
Their religion.
Q.
So when this preliminary injunction was issued on December
23rd, 2011, you were with MCSO, right?
16:43:35
It's a sensitive topic.
10
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Now, you left HSU at one point, correct?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
And when did you leave HSU?
16
A.
Approximately three months after the order came out.
17
believe it was the first business day in April.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
SWAT division.
20
Q.
And you assumed what position?
21
A.
Deputy commander.
22
Q.
And are you still there as deputy commander of SWAT?
16:44:13
Were you lieutenant over HSU at that time?
16:44:25
IEN
DS
And where did you go?
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
Now, we've mentioned Tim Casey a bunch of times, I believe,
25
this afternoon.
FR
23
You know who Tim Casey is, correct?
16:44:36
16:44:55
2703
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
A.
He was our attorney of record on this Melendres matter.
Q.
Did you assist attorney Casey in any way in this Melendres
case?
A.
Lots of production requests.
Q.
Document production requests?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Did -- well, did you assist Mr. Casey a lot in this -- in
And how do you know Mr. Casey?
16:45:09
10
this case with regard to document production?
11
A.
An awful lot.
12
Q.
Is that odd as -- as a lieutenant, to do document
13
production with an attorney?
14
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
15
Objection, leading.
I'm going to allow it.
THE WITNESS:
16
Thank you.
18
it.
19
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
20
Q.
But you participated in this document production.
21
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q.
And you took that seriously?
DS
'cause we have a legal liason that should have been handling
IEN
16:45:40
I believe it's unusual
17
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
Did Mr. Casey ever comment on the assistance that you gave
25
him with regard to document production in this case?
FR
16:45:27
16:45:51
16:46:05
2704
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I remember once he sent Chief Sheridan an e-mail and he
copied me on it, and he mentioned in that e-mail that I was
doing a good job.
Q.
December 23rd, 2011.
injunction, Lieutenant Sousa?
A.
I believe was e-mail at first.
Q.
E-mail from who?
A.
Tim Casey.
10
Q.
And you reviewed the e-mail that Mr. Casey sent you?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
Did you speak with Mr. Casey after the Court issued the
13
preliminary injunction?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
Around what time did you speak with Mr. Casey?
16
A.
Within a week or two, if not sooner.
17
Q.
When you spoke to him within a week or two, if not sooner,
18
what did you talk about?
19
A.
20
how I was interpretating -- interpreting the order.
21
Q.
22
preliminary injunction as it affects HSU?
Okay.
Let's now turn to the preliminary injunction of
How did you learn of this preliminary
16:46:41
16:46:53
DS
I believe I -- oh, I know I told him my interpretation of
16:47:13
IEN
So did you share with Mr. Casey your understanding of the
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
What did you share with him?
25
A.
That once we -- that once we lost 287(g), that we weren't
FR
16:46:25
16:47:28
2705
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
allowed to arrest people or detain people for being in the
company, so the training was you made that phone call within
the 20 minutes of the traffic stop and get ICE on the phone.
And if ICE told you they wanted them, we were detaining them at
their behalf, and I considered it their arrests.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
When you shared your understanding of the preliminary
injunction with Mr. Casey shortly after the preliminary
And you shared that with Mr. Casey?
10
injunction issued, did Mr. Casey express any disagreement with
11
your understanding?
12
A.
He didn't tell me I was wrong, sir.
13
Q.
Did he try to convince you that your understanding of what
14
the preliminary injunction meant was incorrect?

MS. WANG:
15
Objection, leading.
MR. KILLEBREW:
16
THE COURT:
17
16:48:32
Sustained.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
Q.
20
injunction issued, did he explain to you what he referred to as
21
arrest -- excuse me, what he referred to as AOR?
IEN
DS
When you spoke to Mr. Casey shortly after the preliminary
MR. KILLEBREW:
23
MS. WANG:
24
THE COURT:
25
THE WITNESS:
FR
16:48:08
Objection, leading.
18
22
16:47:52
16:48:47
Objection, leading.
Join.
I'll allow it.
No, sir.
16:49:07
2706
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
what was the purpose of that conversation, generally?
A.
order, and my interpretation of the order.
Q.
hearing?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Were you present during his entire testimony?
10
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
Did you listen to his entire testimony?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Do you recall Mr. Casey testifying about AOR?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
Now, did Mr. Casey ever speak with you regarding AOR with
16
regard to the December 23rd, 2011 preliminary injunction?
17
A.
18
sir.
19
Q.
20
you at any time regarding AOR with respect to the preliminary
21
injunction?
22
A.
Okay.
So this conversation that you had with Mr. Casey,
I remember telling him what I thought about what -- the
Were you in this courtroom when Mr. Casey testified in this
16:49:49
Did Mr. Casey speak to
DS
Well, I want to know what you know.
16:50:16
IEN
No, sir.
Q.
24
him -- or excuse me.
FR
16:49:33
Based on his explanation in court and what I heard, no,
23
25
16:49:21
And you understood from his testimony, when you heard

Strike that.
Did you understand what Mr. Casey -- strike that.
16:50:33
2707
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you recall what Mr. Casey testified that "AOR"
1
2
meant?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what was that?
A.
When I heard Mr. Casey testify to AOR, AOR, he said it
several times, and his explanation was simple; it was cop talk;
I understood it.
that in this courtroom: arrest or release, we had no other
option.
It only meant one thing to me when I heard
That conversation, that explanation was never given to
10
me --
11
Q.
Lieutenant Sousa --
12
A.
-- in the time I was --
13
Q.
I'm sorry.
14
A.
-- in those three months that I was in the unit before I
15
left.
16
Q.
17
you heard the term "AOR" from Mr. Casey?
18
A.
In this courtroom.
19
Q.
Had you before that time ever heard the term "AOR" with
20
regard to the preliminary injunction from anyone else before
21
Mr. Casey testified in this hearing?
22
A.
16:51:13
So Lieutenant Sousa, when was the first time that
DS
Okay.
16:51:11
16:51:33
IEN
The first time I heard that term was in this courtroom.
23
Q.
24
time that you transferred out of HSU, did Mr. Casey address HSU
25
regarding AOR?
FR
16:50:48
To your knowledge, from December 23rd, 2011, through the
16:52:06
2708
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Not to my knowledge.
Q.
Did you ever receive written guidance from Mr. Casey
regarding AOR?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you know, to your knowledge, if anyone at HSU received
any written guidance from Mr. Casey regarding AOR?
A.
Not to my knowledge.
Q.
And do you understand when I'm asking this question --
well, let me ask this question:
Do you know if anyone at HSU
10
received any written guidance from Mr. Casey regarding AOR as
11
it pertains to this preliminary injunction?
12
A.
No, not to my knowledge.
13
Q.
Now, Lieutenant, as a lieutenant who had been over HSU for
14
quite some time before the preliminary injunction and who had
15
supervised HSU personnel, if AOR was the only thing that was
16
needed to understand the Court's preliminary injunction, would
17
training scenarios be needed?
18
A.
19
in this courtroom, we wouldn't have needed training scenarios.
20
Q.
And why not?
21
A.
Because based on my understanding from listening to him
22
testify, if I would have got that explanation, I would have --
16:52:42
16:53:14
Based on the explanation and definition that Mr. Casey gave
IEN
DS
16:53:36
23
it would have been an order, just like in 2013, a two- or
24
three-sentence order:
25
over to ICE.
FR
16:52:21
Do not call ICE.
Do not turn people

16:53:50
2709
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Now, shortly after the Court issued the preliminary
injunction, did you also have a discussion with Sergeant Palmer
about the preliminary injunction?
A.
putting scenarios together, training scenarios.
Q.
conversation about the preliminary injunction with
Sergeant Palmer, if you recall?
A.
Yes.
According to the e-mails, I discussed with him
16:54:16
Well, about what time -- about what date did you have a
I'd need to see the e-mail.
The conversation would have
10
been before I sent him the reminder e-mail.
11
Q.
Okay.
16:54:31
We'll get to that in a second.
Well, do you recall having a discussion with
12
13
Sergeant Palmer?
14
A.
15
just don't recall it.
16
Q.
17
training scenarios with regard to the preliminary injunction?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
And about when did you order Sergeant Palmer to do that?
20
A.
I don't have the e-mail in front of me, sir.
21
was January 11th.
22
Q.
Based on the review of the e-mails, I know I did, but I
16:54:45
DS
Do you recall ever ordering Sergeant Palmer to draw up
IEN
Okay.
I think it
So early January, 2012?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
So after you had your discussion with Sergeant Palmer, you
25
sent him an e-mail, is that right?
FR
16:54:59
16:55:23
A.
2710
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Yes, sir.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Could I show the --
Mr. Popolizio, I don't mean to interrupt
you, but in about five minutes it will be 5 o'clock.
could, when you're asking questions, look at a nice place to
break for the evening.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
7
8
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
11
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
17
24
FR
25
I'm that
So we will -- we will recess
You'll be back, Lieutenant Sousa?
16:55:50
Yes, sir.
All right.
Thank you.
parties before we resume tomorrow morning?

All right.
DS
IEN
23
16:55:43
Is there anything else that I need to discuss with the
18
22
All right.
All right.
until tomorrow morning.
16
21
I'll give you the five minutes.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
20
I know we have five minutes, but --
flexible.
13
19
This actually would be a perfect
Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
15
16:55:34
place, because I'm afraid we'll get into something and stop.
12
So if you
Are we good?
See you tomorrow.
(Proceedings concluded at 4:55 p.m.)
16:56:01
2711
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
4
5
6
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
7
8
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
10
11
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
12
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
13
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my direction and control.
15
16
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 9th day of October,
17
18
2015.
20
21
IEN
22
DS
19
23
24
FR
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

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 v. Arpaio #1458 Oct 8 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 11 Evidentiary Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

(Evidentiary Hearing Day 11, Pages 2471-2711)

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

For the Plaintiffs:

American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona

Covington & Burling, LLP

Covington & Burling, LLP

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing

For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:

For the Intervenor United States of America:

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

For Brian Mackiewicz:

For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Employee Grievance Response by Chief Deputy

E-mail from Joseph Sousa to Lisa Allen re

MCSO Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Chief

MCSO Internal Affairs Investigation Report of

Memorandum from Joseph Sousa to Edward Lopez

Video Excerpt from The Joe Show, released

MCSO Memorandum re: ICE LEAR Protocol dated

MCSO Memorandum from Lt. Joseph Sousa to Chief 2660

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/8/15 Evidentiary Hearing

This is civil case number 07-2513,

Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continuation of

Counsel, please announce your appearances.

Good morning, Your Honor.

and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Tammy Albarran, and Michelle Morin for plaintiffs, from

Covington & Burling.

Dan Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona for

Good morning, Your Honor.

Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States.

Good morning, Judge Snow.

Masterson, Joe Popolizio for Sheriff Arpaio and the individual

contemnors, and with us is Holly McGee.

on behalf of Maricopa County.

injury over the weekend, so I'm not sure whether he'll be

Good morning, Your Honor.

And Mr. Jirauch suffered an

joining us or not today.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Alexandra Mijares Nash, specially appearing for Brian

Good morning, Judge Snow.

making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith representing retired Chief

Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed