Melendres v. Arpaio #1455 Oct 1 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 9 Evidentiary Hearing

OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2007
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 9, Pages 2007-2247)
17
18
DS
19
Court Reporter:
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
Phoenix, Arizona
October 1, 2015
9:01 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 the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

County Attorney William Montgomery:
Ridenour Hienton, PLLC
By: April M. Hamilton, Esq.
Chase Tower
201 N. Central Avenue, Suite 3300
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
2008
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing
A P P E A R A N C E S
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.
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
Also present:
Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan
Lieutenant Joseph Sousa
Alexandra Mijares Nash, Esq.
IEN
22
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.
DS
18
23
24
FR
25
2009
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I N D E X
1
2
Witness:
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young
SUZANNE KIMBERLY SEAGRAVES
Direct Examination by Mr. Segura

Cross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio
Redirect Examination by Mr. Segura
Recross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio
Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Segura
7
8
9
10
11
No.
13
92
15
2004
16
17
2012
18
20
21
2014
IEN
22
2013
23
24
FR
25
Description
2015
2076
2215
2220
2232
2244
2015
Admitted
Letter to Charlie Armendariz from Joseph

Arpaio dated 4/23/2011 (MELC004666)
2065
MCSO Memorandum from Lt Seagraves to Captain

Bailey re Suspension of Administrative
Interviews of HSU personnel dated 7/2/2014
(MELC005314)
2097
MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to

Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed
off by Chief Sheridan dated 1/28/2014
(MELC233669)
2151
MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to

Lt Seagraves re Investigative lodging, signed
off by Chief Sheridan dated 2/2/2014
(MELC234036)
2151
E-mail chain re Melendres Court Order dated

5/5/2015 (MELC417670-MELC417672)
2162
MCSO Memorandum from Deputy Chief Lopez to

Chief Deputy Sheridan re Complaint against
Brian Mackiewicz dated 8/14/2014
(MELC186196-MELC186197)
2183
DS
19
Page
E X H I B I T S
12
14
2010
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
E X H I B I T S
1
2
No.
2016
4
5
2255
6
7
8
2730
9
10
11
12
13
2828E
2830C
2832C
14
15
2834A
16
17
2842
18
20
21
23
24
FR
25
Admitted
MCSO Memorandum from Jennifer Johnson to

Sergeant Tennyson re Complaint against Deputy
B. Mackiewicz dated 3/17/2015 (MELC186198)
2189
NY Times Article "Hiding Details of Dubious

Deal, U.S. Invokes National Security" by Eric
Lichtblau and James Rissen dated 2/9/2011
(MELC184881-85)
2061
Case CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS - Defendant Arpaio's

2041
Response to Plaintiffs' Second Set of
Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for
Admission to Defendant Arpaio RE Contempt dated
9/15/2015
Video Clip 5 DOJ Disc 1 of 2, April, 2012
2047
to July 2012
Video Clip 3 Fox News, DOJ dated 4/4/2012
2045
Video Clip 3 Newsmaker with John Hook - Fox,

Sheriff comments on Obama Investigation,
Immigration, Reaching out Hispanics, and
Posse dated 1/27/13
2018
Video Clip 1 Fox News, Your World with Neil

Cavuto, ICE Releasing Immigrants, DOJ Perez
dated 3/18/13
2020
Transcript of Telephone Interview of Deputy

Brian Mackiewicz by Dave Tennyson dated
8/5/2015 (MELC1397031-MELC1397042)
2205
Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request

Related to ITR 25 (MELC662424-MELC662437)
2055
2887
February 2015 Memorandum from Tennyson to

Seagraves re closing out Cosme 15-21
Investigation
2119
2890
Cosme Interview by Tennyson
2133
IEN
22
2858
Description
DS
19
2011
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:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
This is civil case number 07-2513,
Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued
evidentiary hearing.
10
MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
09:02:03
Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.
Cecillia Wang
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
14
MR. POCHODA:
Good morning.
Dan Pochoda from the ACLU
of Arizona for plaintiffs.
16
17
For plaintiffs
Michelle Morin.
12
15
from Covington & Burling, Stanley Young, Tammy Albarran, and
11
13
MR. KILLEBREW:
09:02:13
Paul
Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States.
18
THE COURT:
19
Good morning.
MR. MASTERSON:
Good morning, Judge.
John Masterson,
Joe Popolizio, and Michele Iafrate for Sheriff Arpaio and the
21
individual contemnors, and with us is Holly McGee.
DS
20
THE COURT:
IEN
22
23
24
FR
25
09:01:50
Counsel, please announce your appearance.
8
9
2012
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
MR. WALKER:
09:02:26
Good morning.
Richard Walker
and Charles Jirauch appearing on behalf of Maricopa County.

THE COURT:
Good morning.
09:02:36
MR. McDONALD:
1
2
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
Mel McDonald
Good morning.
Good morning, Judge.
Greg Como
representing Chief Brian Sands.
6
7
8
making a special appearance for Sheriff Arpaio.
2013
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. WOODS:
09:02:44
Terry Woods on
behalf of nonparties Stutz and Liddy.

THE COURT:
Good morning.
MS. HAMILTON:
10
April
09:02:54
11
Hamilton on behalf of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office and
12
Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery.

MR. YOUNG:
13
We have had some discussions about Ms. Seagraves'
14
15
Your Honor, a bit of housekeeping.
appearance --
16
17
09:03:07
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. YOUNG:
-- given her schedule, and I believe she
will be here at the morning break, so with your permission, we
19
would ask that we take a break in Sheriff Arpaio's testimony at
20
that time and proceed with Ms. Seagraves' examination after the
21
morning break.
THE COURT:
IEN
22
DS
18
23
That's acceptable to everyone?
MR. MASTERSON:
That's acceptable to me, Judge.
24
just wanted to point out that Mr. Eisenberg is not here this
25
morning but Lieutenant Sousa is present.
FR
09:03:22
09:03:34
2014
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
Good morning.
We can proceed that way.
I did note that I think
pursuant to my request, defendants last night filed a
reconciliation under seal of investigative documents.
I was trying to reconcile that with some of the
5
6
exhibits that have been admitted into evidence and I was not
able to do it, and so I may have some questions that I'd just
like to resolve with the parties, unless they otherwise get
ironed out for me, which they may do.

MS. WANG:
10
11
THE COURT:
Mr. Masterson?
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
23
24
FR
25
09:04:24
Well --
She's going to be here in just a few
All right.
Work it out.
You may resume, Mr. Young.
DS
IEN
22
And I saw the e-mail, but
minutes, Judge.
19
21
She did.
All right.
MR. MASTERSON:
17
20
I think maybe Ms. Iafrate did it.
I've not seen the document.
16
18
Do you know what we're talking about,
MR. MASTERSON:
14
15
09:04:09
of what was lodged under seal by defendants.
12
13
Your Honor, plaintiffs do not have a copy
09:03:52
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you.
09:04:31
2015
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Arpaio - DX Young, 10/1/15 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.
Good morning, Sheriff.
A.
Good morning.
Q.
So I'm going to show you a video.
it is John Hook, and we'll ask you some questions about it.
09:04:39
This time, I do promise,

It
10
is Exhibit 2832C.
11
what your office as given us, it's a January 27, 2013 interview
12
on Newsmaker with John Hook.
13
MR. YOUNG:
14
And I'll represent to you, at least based on
Your Honor, may we play the video and then
I'll ask the sheriff about it?

THE COURT:
15
You may do so.
09:05:13
(Video clip played as follows:)
16
JOHN HOOK:
17
30 percent of Maricopa County, roughly, is
Hispanic.
19
owe that community some extension of an olive branch, and I
20
think you started to give it on election night.
23
24
FR
25
So do you
09:05:42
What concretely have you done to try to reach out to
that community since the election?
IEN
22
You are the sheriff of all the people.
DS
18
21
09:04:48
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
Well, I've put the hand out to a
couple elected officials.

JOHN HOOK:
Were they receptive?
09:05:55
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
2016
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No.
Because there are a certain
group here that don't want me to enforce the illegal
immigration laws.
aggravate the situation constantly, especially now with the new
philosophy with the Republican Party and everybody else to get
back the Latino vote.
I'm like the poster boy.
They want to
I've always worked closely with the Latinos, and they
7
8
know it, and I do have support from that group.
certain agitators, whatever you want to call it, that don't
10
But there's
like what I'm doing.

JOHN HOOK:
11
12
09:06:27
So you think that the majority of
Hispanics support you?
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
13
Well, you know one reason I want to
14
reach out, very simple, I want to get to them, given it's the
15
truth.
09:06:36
JOHN HOOK:
16
What is the truth as you see it?
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
17
Well, the truth is that I served four
years as a head of the federal drug enforcement in Mexico City,
19
South America, I covered the Texas border, I covered the
20
Arizona -- Arizona border as a head of the federal drug
21
enforcement.
22
got great cooperation from the President of Mexico down.
IEN
DS
18
I know Mexico.
I know the Latinos.
09:06:46
I've always
23
So I like to at least let them know, the community,
24
why we enforce the immigration laws, why I'm doing what I am
25
doing, and try to get the message out that way.
FR
09:06:08
09:07:06
2017
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
(Video clip concludes.)
1
2
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
after your 2012 reelection?
A.
What year was the segment?
Q.
I'll represent to you that the date information we have on
the disk that was given to us by your attorneys was January 27,
2013.
A.
Sheriff, is that you talking to John Hook not too long
11
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, I move the admission of
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
13
Objection, relevance; cumulative; 403.
I'm going to overrule the relevance
objection.
I didn't understand initially what Mr. Masterson was
15
16
talking about yesterday when he said "cumulative."
17
go back and review Sheriff Arpaio's testimony from the first
18
iteration of the contempt hearing, and I did note that you
19
placed in a number of similar video recordings that were
20
admitted into evidence.
09:08:09
I'm not going to prevent you, I suppose, if
Mr. Masterson wants to stipulate putting them in, to putting
IEN
22
23
them in, but at some point it does become cumulative.
24
don't think we need to play them all here in court; I get the
25
message, I think.
FR
09:07:52
But I did
DS
21
09:07:35
Exhibit 2832C.
12
14
Does that sound right to you?
Yes.
10
09:07:22
And I
09:08:24
MR. YOUNG:
1
2
2018
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Understood, Your Honor.
I just have one
more in that vein.
THE COURT:
All right.
2832C is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2832C is admitted into evidence.)
MR. YOUNG:
09:08:37
Thank you, Your Honor.
May we play now 2834A.
(Video clip played as follows:)
UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
You know, you mentioned this Labor
10
Secretary designate, Perez, of course, who comes really from
11
the Justice Department, going after your methods in Arizona and
12
elsewhere, but what do you think of him running Labor?
13
just seems like an odd choice.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:
14
09:08:49
That
Well, he ought to be thanking me,
because we raided 74 businesses, my office, and arrested 500
16
people in those businesses here illegally with fake IDs.
17
ought to say, Thank you, sheriff.
18
for those here legally that they need a job, and as you say, we
19
do have an unemployment problem.
20
these jobs to people that violated the law coming here
21
illegally?
that shoulder back up to speed.
24
it there.
FR
So he
You're making up openings
So why would you want to give
Amazing.
23
25
09:09:07
09:09:25
Let's save the jobs for U.S. citizens.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
IEN
22
DS
15
Get
You've got a lot of weight on
Always good seeing you.

All right.
Sheriff, feel better.
Joe Arpaio, thank you.
In the meantime --
09:09:42
2019
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
Sheriff, is that you?
A.
Said I had a lot of weight.
Q.
Well, you remember you having your shoulder injured in
March 2013, and then talking to --
A.
That's why I was in that shirt.
Q.
That's right.
A.
Probably.
10
Q.
And that is you on the video?
11
A.
Yes.
09:10:08
Your Honor, I move the admission of 2834A.
MR. MASTERSON:
13
The same objection, but I'm going to
14
also add all I heard was reference to arrests for state --
15
Arizona state crimes, so that's an additional relevance factor.

THE COURT:
16
17
MR. YOUNG:
Sure, Your Honor.
DS
(Video clip played.)

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
09:10:38
You know, you mentioned this Labor
Secretary designate, Perez, of course, who comes really from
IEN
22
I wasn't sure I heard anything about
Do you want to replay it for me?
19
21
23
the Justice Department, going after your methods in Arizona and
24
elsewhere, but what do you think of him running Labor?
25
just seems like an odd choice.
FR
09:10:23
federal immigration laws, either, on that one.
18
20
09:09:50
And that was in about March 2013, correct?
MR. YOUNG:
12
What year was that?
That
09:09:01
2020
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
Well, he ought to be thanking me,
because we raided 74 businesses, my office, and arrested 500
people in those businesses here illegally with fake IDs.
ought to say, Thank you, sheriff.
for those here legally that they need a job, and as you say, we
do have an unemployment problem.
these jobs to people that violated the law coming here
illegally?
that shoulder back up to speed.
11
it there.
Sheriff, feel better.
Get
You've got a lot of weight on
Always good seeing you.
All right.
THE COURT:
14
Joe Arpaio, thank you.
In the meantime --
I'll admit the exhibit.
You can argue its
relevance.
09:11:43
(Exhibit No. 2834A is admitted into evidence.)
16
MR. YOUNG:
17
18
BY MR. YOUNG:
19
Q.
20
citizens, that was a political statement on your part, correct?
21
A.
22
sense.
DS
Sheriff, what you said about saving jobs for American
IEN
I don't know if you call it political.
09:11:53
It makes common
It was just my opinion speaking out on national TV.
23
Q.
24
on unemployment issues, as they might be affected by your
25
immigration related enforcement efforts, were political
FR
09:09:37
13
15
09:09:18
So why would you want to give
Amazing.
10
12
You're making up openings
Let's save the jobs for U.S. citizens.
UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
So he
Well, didn't you say that your statements on political --
09:12:16
statements?
A.
that program and arrest people with fake identification.
was what our mission was.
Yes.
That's a side issue.
MR. YOUNG:
2021
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
The main issue was to enforce
That
Your Honor, I may address this next
question to Mr. Masterson.
number of exhibits which I would like to have admitted, which I
can examine the sheriff on, but we could save time if we could
achieve a stipulation.
10
I had an e-mail exchange about a
And they are Exhibits 79, 80, 81, 83,
86, and 89.
09:13:00
MR. MASTERSON:
11
I think we had another e-mail on my
12
way down here, but -- I don't know what you want me to do,
13
Judge.
I can, I guess, try to look through all of them.

THE COURT:
14
You haven't looked at them yet?
MR. MASTERSON:
15
16
17
No, sir.
09:13:14
THE COURT:
All right.
Then proceed, Mr. Young.
MR. YOUNG:
Perhaps I'll defer that question until
18
Mr. Masterson has more of a chance.
19
that.
THE COURT:
DS
20
21
BY MR. YOUNG:
22
Q.
Would that -- let's do
All right.
09:13:24
IEN
Sheriff, as a result of this Court's December 23, 2011
23
preliminary injunction, you did not tell anyone in your office
24
to change anything about how your office was doing its work, is
25
that correct?
FR
09:12:36
09:13:40
2022
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No, I -- after this preliminary injunction came out, we did
delegate that to Brian Sands, and the lawyer was keeping track
of it, so there were, I'm sure, many discussions between those
people regarding this order.
Q.
a result of the injunction, is that correct?
A.
again, was delegated to my subordinates to carry that message
out.
But you yourself did not tell anyone to change anything as
Well, I didn't go out to every employee, but that, once
10
Q.
11
earlier this month on April 15 -- actually, no.
12
Actually, last month at this point.
Sheriff, do you remember having your deposition taken
Actually, sorry, it is September 17.
13
09:14:24
September 18.
You remember
14
having a deposition, correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
play it on the screen -- to page 358, line 16, to 359, line 1.
21
23
(Deposition video clip played as follows:)

"Question:
09:15:14
Did you, yourself, ask anyone to change
anything in what your office was doing as a result of the

injunction?
24
"Answer:
25
"Question:
FR
It's
clip number 6.
IEN
22
I'm going to direct your attention -- and we can
DS
20
09:14:52
And I'm going to have Mr. Klein play that video.
18
19
09:14:05
What do you mean by change?

Do anything different from what your
09:15:31
office was doing before the injunction was issued?

"Answer:
2
3
2023
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No.
I didn't tell them to change anything
differently."
(Deposition video clip concluded.)
4
5
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
September 17 of this year?
A.
subordinates.
09:15:40
Sheriff, do you recall -- is that the testimony you gave on
I think I mentioned I delegated that responsibility to my
MR. MASTERSON:
10
Your Honor, excuse me.
Under Rule
11
106, could we have the next question and answer on page 359,
12
lines 3 through 6.
(Cell phone heard in courtroom.)
13
THE COURT:
14
THE COURT:
16
21
don't need it.
23
24
FR
25
I won't take the call, Your Honor.
I thought it was off.
MR. YOUNG:
Well, I'm happy to read it, Your Honor,
THE COURT:
Will reading it be adequate if we don't
09:16:19
if --
IEN
22
09:16:11
Why don't you leave the courtroom and take
MR. JIRAUCH:
DS
20
Yes, Your Honor.
your call?
18
19
Mr. Jirauch?
MR. JIRAUCH:
15
17
09:15:57
have it on the video clip?

MR. MASTERSON:
If he has it on video, that would be
wonderful; if not, reading would be adequate.
09:16:28
THE COURT:
Okay.
I do think in fairness, if you have it on video, you
2
3
ought to show it on video.

MR. YOUNG:
Mr. Klein, are you able to do that as to
page 359, lines 3 through 6?
THE COURT:
2024
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And this is before or after the clip we
just saw?
MR. MASTERSON:
8
9
10
Immediately after.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
MR. YOUNG:
Actually, Your Honor, if I can add on to
11
that, so I'm going to ask Mr. Klein to play page 359, lines 3
12
through 20.
"Answer:
14
Well, why didn't you tell anyone to change
anything?
"Answer:
Because they were following the Judge's
orders, court orders.

"Question:
DS
20
I didn't tell them to change anything
09:17:31
"Question:
18
19
No.
differently.
16
17
Well, actually, Sheriff, your office was
not following the Judge's order, and you've admitted that it
22
was not and that's why you've previously said that you were
IEN
21
23
willing to have civil contempt found against you for violating
24
that order.
FR
25
09:16:56
13
15
09:16:36
"Do you remember that?
09:17:52
09:18:11
"MR. MASTERSON:
"THE WITNESS:
2025
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Form, foundation.
No.
I said as the leader, I take
responsibility but not the nuts and bolts.
actual --"
So in the
THE COURT:
It cut off the last line, but I got it.
"In the actual compliance, that was delegated," is what it
said.
BY MR. YOUNG:
10
Q.
Sheriff, was that testimony accurate?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Your office had some internal investigations relating to --
13
well, actually, one internal investigation relating to
14
violation of the preliminary injunction.

Do you recall that?
15
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
Well, you gave an interview to Don Vogel in connection with
18
the 453 investigation, which was about the violation of the
19
injunction.
20
A.
Is that the one you're referring to?
21
Q.
Yes.
22
A.
Yes.
DS
IEN
09:18:37
09:18:55
Do you recall that?
23
Q.
24
to determine whether there were any violations of your
25
department's policies in connection with the failure to comply
FR
Okay.
09:18:29
09:19:10
And you recall the purpose of that investigation was
09:19:20
2026
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
with the Court's injunction, correct?
A.
I believe that was the stimulus behind that.
Q.
Now, you never considered subjecting yourself to become a
principal of that investigation, correct?
A.
I did appear before the private investigator.
Q.
I understand you were interviewed by Mr. Vogel, but you
yourself were never, and you never subjected yourself to, a
potential finding of violation or potential discipline in that
investigation, is that correct?
10
A.
Well, I don't know if I could make that decision on myself,
11
but when you say "principal," I'm not sure what you're talking
12
about.
13
Q.
14
potentially subject to discipline in that investigation, is
15
that correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Chief Olson was the person who was in charge of making the
18
final decisions about violation and discipline in that
19
investigation, correct?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
You and Chief Sheridan made the decision to appoint
22
Chief Olson to that role, correct?
09:20:05
IEN
DS
Well, you'd agree with me that you yourself were never
23
A.
I made the final decision.
24
Q.
You chose not to do that yourself, is that right?
25
A.
Yes.
FR
09:19:45
09:20:21
09:20:38
09:20:56
2027
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Why not?
A.
Because I never get involved in those type of situations.
I always delegate.
Q.
make those final determinations?
A.
No.
Q.
You recognize that there was also an investigation, also
done by Mr. Vogel, with respect to the issue of supervision of
Deputy Armendariz, correct?
Did you ever think about having somebody outside the agency
A.
I vaguely remember that.
11
Q.
Did you ever think about having anybody outside the MCSO
12
play the role of final decision maker on that investigation?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
That was also a final investigation where Chief Olson was
15
the final decision maker, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Now, with respect to the 543 investigation, which is the
18
one about the violation of the injunction, you knew when you
19
decided to make Chief Olson the final decision maker that he
20
would be making a decision with respect to Chief Sheridan,
21
correct?
22
A.
DS
10
09:21:29
09:21:55
09:22:11
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
and that Chief Olson reported to Chief Sheridan, correct?
25
A.
FR
09:21:15
You knew that Chief Sheridan was Chief Olson's superior,
Yes.
09:22:26
2028
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
So you knew that when you appointed Chief Olson, that he
would have to pass judgment on someone who was his superior, is
that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You realize that as to Chief Sheridan -- or actually I
should ask you:
Sheridan there were some initial findings of violation that
Chief Olson then later reversed?
A.
I heard about it, but I never did get involved.
10
Q.
You did not think that there would be any conflict in
11
having Chief Olson make those final decisions as to Chief
12
Sheridan, his superior, is that right?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
Well, let me just make sure I understand your answer.
Did you hear, do you know, that as to Chief
16
conflict?
17
A.
18
decision --
19
Q.
Okay.
20
A.
-- and his experience.
21
Q.
Well, let me make sure I've clarified here.
22
there was a conflict as a result of their reporting
09:23:32
IEN
DS
No, because of the character of the person making that
09:23:50
Did you think
23
relationship?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Now, you yourself have not imposed any penalty or any
FR
09:23:08
Can I elaborate?
Is it correct that you did not think there was a
15
09:22:38
09:23:59
2029
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
discipline on Chief Sheridan relating to violation of the
injunction --
A.
No.
Q.
-- is that correct?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you imposed any penalty or discipline on Chief
Sheridan?
A.
No.
Q.
Have you imposed any penalty or discipline on anybody in
09:24:09
10
your department as a result of the violation of the injunction?
11
A.
12
to appropriate officials.
13
Q.
Well, Chief Sheridan serves at your pleasure, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And you could also -- well, as to Chief Sheridan, it's
16
possible that you -- you could make a decision to do something
17
with respect to him, even dismiss him, for violating the
18
Court's orders, correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
But you've chosen not to do that --
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
-- is that right?
As I say, I delegated that
IEN
23
A.
24
of this office with a tremendous background.
25
him, unless something else comes up in the future, and that's
FR
09:24:35
09:24:48
DS
That's my -- not my decision.
09:24:20
Chief Sheridan is a very professional, dedicated employee

And I stand by
09:25:06
2030
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the way it is.
Q.
Chief Sheridan?
A.
Can you imagine anything that would cause you to dismiss
Well, if he sticks up a -MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Objection, relevance to "anything."
I'm going to sustain the objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
no one in your department violated any policy of your
10
department with respect to failure to comply with the
11
injunction?
12
A.
13
confidence in Chief Olson.
14
He's a voting member of POST, which is a state agency that
15
decides on discipline.
16
him, when I agreed to ask him to do that assignment, that you
17
call it like you see it.
18
that he did that.
19
Q.
So you stand by Chief Olson's final findings, correct?
20
A.
I don't have all the details, but I stand by his decisions.
21
Q.
Sheriff, it's at least possible that it would be better to
22
have someone outside the agency, such as the monitor, perform
Sheriff, do you stand by Chief Olson's final findings that
FR
He's been through this before.
I have confidence in him.
And I told
09:26:00
DS
And I'm convinced, with his ethics,
09:26:24
the function that Chief Olson performed in that investigation.
24
25
09:25:39
Once again, I did not get into the details, but I do have
IEN
23
09:25:23
A.
Would you agree with that?
I don't know if the monitor had any authority to
09:26:48
2031
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigate our people.
Q.
decisions on discipline and violation with respect to, say,
issues arising out of violation of this Court's orders,
correct?
A.
runs the third-largest sheriff's office in the country with
tremendous work, and as I say again, I support Olson.
know all the facts doing his evaluation, but I support the
Well, you could agree to have the monitor make final
09:27:12
I think that is the function of the elected sheriff who
10
person.
11
thing.
12
Q.
You're the elected sheriff, right?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
So you could, as the elected sheriff, make the decision to
15
have the monitor, to appoint the monitor be the final
16
decision maker in an internal investigation relating to
17
violations of this Court's orders, is that right?
18
A.
19
some people will call it Civil Service.
20
in order to decide on these type of decisions, discipline and
21
so on, so I don't know where the monitor would fit in.
I have faith in him for doing the right
09:27:53
DS
So there are mechanics
09:28:21
On the other hand -- and once again, I don't get
23
involved in internal securities; I delegate that.
But on the
24
other hand, I have confidence in my organization.
We've gone
25
through many, many hundreds of investigations, Internal
FR
09:27:40
Well, you know, our employees do have merit protection;
IEN
22
The person.
I don't
09:28:49
2032
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Affairs.
Q.
Chief Olson that even though your office violated this Court's
preliminary injunction, there was no violation of your
policies.
A.
Maybe that would --
Q.
no violation of your office's policies as a result of the
10
So you have confidence in a final finding made by
Is that what you're saying?
I don't have all the facts where he came to his conclusion.
But you agree with that conclusion, though, that there was
violation of this Court's orders, is that right?

MR. MASTERSON:
11
THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
13
09:29:22
Objection, foundation.
As of now, I don't --
Sheriff -- Sheriff, please.
I'm going to overrule the objection.
14
BY MR. YOUNG:
16
Q.
Do you have the question in mind, Sheriff?
17
A.
Could you repeat it?
18
Q.
You agree that there was no violation of your office's
19
policies resulting from the violation of this Court's
20
injunction.
21
A.
22
slash investigation was.
DS
15
09:29:46
09:30:00
IEN
Once again, I am going on what Chief Olson's examination

I don't have all the details on what
23
his decision was --
24
Q.
Okay.
25
A.
-- as far as the facts during the course of his
FR
09:29:06
09:30:21
2033
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigation.
2
3
4
THE COURT:
Can I interrupt?
MR. YOUNG:
Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
This will just save me having to ask a
question later on and maybe bring something to a conclusion.
You understand, Sheriff, that one of the things I'm
doing here is evaluating whether changes need to be made in
light of the failures that led to my order not being
implemented.
THE WITNESS:
10
THE COURT:
11
THE COURT:
13
09:30:43
You understand that.
THE WITNESS:
12
Yes.
Yes, sir.
All right.
And you understand that one of
14
the things I'm doing is looking at how your office investigates
15
itself, correct?
09:30:49
THE WITNESS:
16
THE COURT:
17
Yes.
And I think you've indicated that you are
willing to be bound by Chief Olson's determination as your
19
office's final determination about what the appropriate
20
determination was with respect to any of your policies being
21
violated, is that correct?
DS
18
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
Okay.
24
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, I would ask that we play the
FR
09:31:01
Yes, sir.
23
25
09:30:30
video from the sheriff's March 25, 2015 deposition, page 258,
09:31:13
line 15, to 259, line 29.
2
3
4
2034
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
line 29.
THE COURT:
That was the March 15 dep --
MR. YOUNG:
March 25, 2015, page 258, line 15, to 259,
And for Mr. Klein's benefit, that's clip number 76.
"Question:
Well, wouldn't it be better if the monitor
were to take over the authority for dispositions on discipline
actions for violations of the Court's orders?

"Answer:
10
That would be a possibility.
"Question:
11
better possibility or better solution than leaving the
13
disposition authority in the hands of the people who were
14
responsible for violating the Court's orders in the first
15
place; correct?"
"THE WITNESS:
17
MR. MASTERSON:
19
objection.
21
point.
THE COURT:
IEN
FR
25
Without getting into the --"
Judge, I'm going to assert the
I made an objection in the transcript at this
DS
20
24
Objection.
18
23
09:32:16
MR. MASTERSON:
16
09:31:59
As a matter of principle, that -- that's a
12
22
09:31:36
09:32:24
I don't -- oh, is there an objection
that's been deleted from the transcript?

MR. YOUNG:
It's possible the video has an objection
deleted, Your Honor, but --
09:32:36
THE COURT:
Well, let's go back and see that.
MR. YOUNG:
Mr. Klein, do you think you can do the --
MR. MASTERSON:
Are we on -- I'm sorry.
may I ask counsel a question?
THE COURT:
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
12
that your question?
13
MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:
19
24
FR
25
Is
At line 10?
09:33:11
Line 25's the one I'm looking at,
MR. YOUNG:
And there is another one at line 25.
THE COURT:
And what is -- it's a form objection?
Is
DS
it a form objection?
IEN
23
Are we at line 21 on page 258?
Judge, because I think that's the question Mr. Young just read.
18
22
09:32:55
Well, I'm going to flip to 258 at line 15,
MR. MASTERSON:
16
21
That's fine.
and I think Ms. Iafrate made a form objection at line 10.
15
20
But I don't even think you were in
No, but there's an objection by
MR. MASTERSON:
11
17
09:32:47
defense counsel.
10
14
Sure.
May I ask --
this case yet.
8
9
I --
Mr. Masterson?
2035
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
09:33:24
MR. YOUNG:
Yes.
THE COURT:
All right.
So what's your objection now,
Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON:
My objection is to the use of the
phrase, leaving disposition authority in the hands of people
09:33:31
who were responsible for violating the Court's order in the
first place.
3
4
5
2036
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Foundation.
THE COURT:
I'll sustain that objection.
MR. YOUNG:
All right.
Well, then let's go to line 6
on page 259.
09:33:50
Actually, maybe I should -- before we play the video,
6
7
perhaps I should give Mr. Masterson a chance, going all the way
down to line 29 at page 259, whether there are any other
objections that he wants to assert at this point.

MR. MASTERSON:
10
11
MR. YOUNG:
MR. MASTERSON:
Objection, foundation, legal
THE COURT:
I would like somebody's copy.
MR. MASTERSON:
19
As long as you give it back, I'll give
DS
you this one.
THE COURT:
09:35:13
Thank you.
IEN
MR. MASTERSON:
(Handing).
23
(Pause in proceedings.)
24
THE COURT:
FR
25
09:34:58
Do you have the -- well, would you like my copy for --
18
22
Well -- yes.
conclusions, and relevance.
17
21
No.
at page 259.
15
20
Yes.
And actually, it will go from line 6 down to line 25
13
16
09:34:16
at line 6 through 10?
12
14
And you're going to read the question
again, Mr. Masterson?
All right.
So what are your objections,

09:35:50
MR. MASTERSON:
2037
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Foundation as to the -- foundation, in
that the question calls for a legal conclusion; and also its
relevance, since the Court will be making these ultimate
rulings on effective relief.
THE COURT:
I'm going to overrule the objections.
Well, I'm going to overrule the objections to the
6
7
extent that the sheriff is the final decision maker in Maricopa
County.
opinions about appropriate ways to handle discipline within his
10
office.
13
14
No, sir.
THE COURT:
Okay.
You can play the tape.
MR. YOUNG:
So Mr. Klein, could you start at line 6 of page 259,
15
"Answer: ... study, the protection of our employees.
18
Merit rules.
I can go on and on.
DS
"Question:
Well, assuming that all of the state law
protections are abided by by the monitor, it would be a good
22
solution for the monitor to assume responsibility for deciding
IEN
21
23
how to discipline people within your office for violations of
24
the Court's orders; correct?
FR
25
09:36:36
and go to line 25.
17
20
09:36:26
MR. MASTERSON:
12
19
And so I think he does have the foundation to offer
Did you have other objections?
11
16
09:36:08
"MS. IAFRATE:
Form.
09:36:51
09:37:12
2038
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
"THE WITNESS:
I have no objection for the monitor
conducting investigations.
action following that information or evidence, I still haven't
decided which way to go on that.
"BY MR. YOUNG:
09:37:32
"Question:
As far as who -- the disciplinary
Okay.
So, in your view, it's possible
that it would be better if the monitor took over those
disposition decisions; correct?
"MS. IAFRATE:
Form.
"THE WITNESS:
I don't know if it's better or not,
10
11
but, once again, I haven't decided.
12
"BY MR. YOUNG:
'Question:
13
14
considering now?
15
Answer:
Is that something you're actively
It's a possibility."
09:37:50
16
17
BY MR. YOUNG:
18
Q.
19
March 25, 2015?
20
A.
21
you run a large organization, so nothing is impossible.
22
Q.
Sheriff, was that testimony accurate when you gave it on
I said it's a possibility.
DS
Yes.
Everything changes when
09:38:00
IEN
Is it possible now, in your view?
23
A.
Pardon?
24
Q.
Is it possible now, in your view, that it would be better
25
to have the monitor take over that decision-making?
FR
09:37:41
09:38:19
A.
No.
MR. YOUNG:
2039
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, there's some dep- -- well,
some interrogatory responses.
get -- well, I can show them to the sheriff.
Exhibit 2730.
are willing to stipulate to the admission of those
interrogatory responses, I'd be happy to spare the sheriff the
time.
I believe he verified them.
THE COURT:
I'm wondering whether we could

It's
Although if counsel
Have you designated them to Mr. Masterson?
10
Does he know which interrogatory responses you're talking
11
about?
MR. YOUNG:
12
13
THE COURT:
17
18
19
09:39:09
The sheriff verified the whole thing --
THE COURT:
Well --
MR. YOUNG:
-- Exhibit 2730.
THE COURT:
2730.
Can you take a look at that, Mr. Masterson?
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, I'm going to object to the
23
introduction of the entire document.
24
specific questions concerning them then I'll address any
25
appropriate objections at that time.
FR
09:39:13
IEN
22
Mr. Masterson verified it or the sheriff
MR. YOUNG:
DS
21
Well, he verified the whole thing, so I'm
verified it?
16
20
09:38:59
going to ask --
14
15
09:38:45
If counsel wants to ask
09:39:52
THE COURT:
2040
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Please proceed, Mr. Young.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
Sheriff, do you have Exhibit 2730 in front of you?
A.
Where is -- oh, here?
Q.
I think it might be one of those folders.
A.
What number?
Q.
2730.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Exhibit 2730 has the title "Defendant Arpaio's Response to
10
Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and First Set of
11
Requests For Admission to Defendant Arpaio Re Contempt."
13
says that you "verify that the matters and things contained
14
therein are true to the best of your knowledge and belief,
15
except such matters as are stated upon information and belief,
16
and as to such matters, you believe them to be true."
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
A.
Yes.
Is that your signature under that language?
DS
18
MR. YOUNG:
09:41:28
Your Honor, I'd move to admit
IEN
Exhibit 2730.
23
MR. MASTERSON:
24
MR. WALKER:
25
MR. COMO:
FR
09:41:14
Do you see that language there?
17
22
09:40:46
If you go to the last page, you'll see something that
12
21
09:40:07
No objection.
No objection, Your Honor.

No objection.
09:41:37
THE COURT:
2041
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Exhibit 2730 is admitted.
(Exhibit No. 2730 is admitted into evidence.)
2
3
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
the monitor would be --
Now, going back to the discussion we just had about whether
09:41:48
Sheriff, we're done with that exhibit, so --
6
7
A.
We're done?
Q.
We're finished with that exhibit.
A.
Did you say we're done?
10
Q.
We're finished with that Exhibit --
11
A.
Oh.
12
Q.
-- 2730; we're not done with the questioning.
13
A.
Okay.
14
Q.
Going back to our discussion about the monitor, at least in
15
March, it appears from your deposition, that you thought it
16
would be at least possible that it would be better for monitor
17
to make the decisions about discipline for violation of this
18
Court's orders, but you now think that that's not a
19
possibility?
Did I capture your testimony correctly?
DS
20
09:41:57
A.
No.
22
organization, some changes can be made.
IEN
21
Oh, I said anything is possible.
09:42:23
When you run a large
I think that's what my
23
thrust of my comment was.
24
Q.
25
could assume responsibility for final dispositions on
FR
09:42:06
Now do you think the change could be made, that the monitor
09:42:43
disciplinary matters involving violations of this Court's
orders?
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Objection, asked and answered.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
2042
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Right now, as I said, we have not made a
decision.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
whether it would be acceptable from your standpoint to have the
Are you still in the process of making a decision about
10
monitor take over that responsibility?
11
A.
We're still looking at all the aspects of that situation.
12
Q.
Would you object if the monitor were to take over that
13
responsibility?
14
A.
I've not made the decision.
15
Q.
You thought about the issue of having a monitor oversee
16
your office's operations in 2012 after the Department of
17
Justice filed its lawsuit, is that right?
not want a monitor overseeing your office?
21
A.
You are speaking on the Department of Justice?
22
Q.
Well, right now I'm actually asking about your -- your
IEN
DS
20
FR
25
09:43:24
And in particular, do you recall thinking that you did
19
24
09:43:05
Do you recall that?
18
23
09:42:55
09:43:48
views about having a monitor oversee your office.

During the course of 2012, do you recall that you
thought that that would be a bad idea, to have a monitor
09:44:10
overseeing your office?
A.
Yes.
MR. YOUNG:
-- not having a monitor.
Your Honor, I would ask that we look at

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
But I want to ask you, because they
seem to be suggesting the thing that is making the negotiations
10
break down is your -- this is their characterization -- your
11
sudden objection to having this independent monitor, something
12
that you hadn't objected to before, so they -SHERIFF ARPAIO:
13
-- think it's you who's making the
15
conflict come to a head right now.
16
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
09:44:57
That is garbage.
That is garbage.
17
publicly in the past said I will never give in to a control by
18
the federal government.
19
statements they make are false -- that's not true.
That is false -- which many other
(Video clip concluded.)
09:45:15
DS
21
BY MR. YOUNG:
22
Q.
IEN
Sheriff, is that you?
23
A.
24
was about; you just showed parts of it.
25
just a little sound bite that you show without the whole
FR
09:44:46
And that --
UNKNOWN SPEAKER:
14
20
09:44:23
Exhibit 2830C.
Your Honor --
THE WITNESS:
And the DOJ ruled in our favor --
MR. YOUNG:
2043
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I don't even know what the beginning of that conversation

So it's hard to answer
09:45:25
2044
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
context of that interview.
Q.
lawyers have it now, and if you want, you can have them play it
for you, or we could play the whole thing for you if you
wanted, but my question is:
A.
It was me and it was Kelly of Fox.
Q.
And that was in approximately April 2012 when you were
talking about the dispute you were having with the Department
of Justice at that time, correct?
10
A.
Well, your office gave us the whole interview and your
I believe so.
MR. YOUNG:
11
12
Was that you?
2830C.
09:46:02
Your Honor, I move for the admission of
MR. MASTERSON:
13
THE COURT:
14
Objection, relevance.
I guess, Mr. Young, I don't understand
15
what the relevance is.
16
needs to appropriate control over matters that relate to this
17
lawsuit or the plaintiff class, and that if I have the
18
jurisdiction to do it, I'll do it.
19
sheriff --
I mean, if I determine that the monitor
THE COURT:
I don't care whether the sheriff objects
23
MR. YOUNG:
I understand that, Your Honor.
24
This issue goes to the state of mind issue as to the
FR
25
09:46:29
or not.
IEN
22
DS
Your Honor, this relates --
21
09:46:16
I don't care whether the
MR. YOUNG:
20
09:45:44
contempt, and it relates to the sheriff's views about having a
09:46:41
2045
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
monitor, which relates to, for example, how he interacted with
a monitor on May 14, 2014, and how he's reacted to having a
monitor generally.
issue.
THE COURT:
5
6
basis.
I think it's quite relevant to the contempt
All right.
I'll admit the exhibit on that
(Exhibit No. 2830C is admitted into evidence.)
7
8
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
Did that video accurately reflect how you felt about the
10
idea of having a monitor, Sheriff?
11
A.
12
on the Department of Justice issue, whether it was to monitor
13
my whole organization, every aspect.
14
constitutional right, as the elected sheriff that reports to 4
15
million people in this county, to serve them as the elected
16
sheriff.
17
organization, I think that may be a legal problem, too, when
18
you're dealing with an elected constitutional sheriff.
09:47:13
I believe -- I'm not sure of the confines of that monitor
I do have a
09:47:42
So when you say that someone can take over my
So I think that's what I may have had in my mind at
19
that time, and I don't recall everything in that segment to
21
draw to that question.
22
time.
IEN
DS
20
09:48:06
But basically that's how I felt at that
23
MR. YOUNG:
24
25
SHERIFF ARPAIO:
FR
09:47:00
Could we play Exhibit 2828E.
But don't go around taking over my
09:48:28
2046
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
office, and every time I want to do something we have to talk
to them and see if it's okay to go lock up some illegals, or
the tents, and everything else.
4
5
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
connection with your dispute with the DOJ?
A.
What about the whole context of that interview?
09:48:42
Sheriff, is that you also objecting to having a monitor in
Once again, that was, what, two seconds?
Three seconds?
Very difficult
10
to answer that when I don't remember the whole interview.
11
Q.
Sheriff, you can't tell whether that's you or not?
12
A.
I know it's me.
MR. YOUNG:
13
I move to admit 2828E.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
I'm going to make the same objection
as to relevance and cumulative, but in addition, as the sheriff
16
pointed out, in the DOJ case -- and I can tell you this, I was
17
counsel for the sheriff in the DOJ case -- DOJ wanted to take
18
over the entire department.
19
wanted an inspector general.
20
about here, not a monitor over disciplinary matters and IA
21
matters.
DS
15
THE COURT:
IEN
22
They wanted a monitor.
09:49:18
They
That's what the sheriff's talking
09:49:37
Well, I do think that after the admission
23
of the first, the second starts to get a little cumulative.
24
I'll allow it, but I'm not going to allow any more.
25
admit this for a limited purpose.
FR
09:48:58
So I will
And, you know, we've already
09:49:53
2047
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
heard argument from Mr. Masterson as to why its relevance is
limited, but you can make argument on the other side.
(Exhibit No. 2828E is admitted into evidence.)
3
4
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
go talk to a monitor before locking up some illegals.
So Sheriff, you said something about not wanting to have to
Do you recall that?
We just saw it on the video.
A.
but -- whether it had to do with illegal immigration or not, or
Well, once again, I don't know what led into that comment,
10
the Department of Justice zeroing in on taking over my
11
organization.
MR. YOUNG:
12
overstepped -- or stepped on your -- did we admit -- did you
14
admit 2828E?
15
16
17
18
19
09:50:28
Actually, Your Honor, I may have
13
THE COURT:
What was that?
MR. YOUNG:
The video we just saw, Exhibit 2828E?
THE COURT:
Yes, I admitted --
MR. YOUNG:
Thank you.
THE COURT:
-- 2828E.
BY MR. YOUNG:
21
Q.
22
the press, you're referring to people who are in the country
DS
20
09:50:49
09:50:57
IEN
Well, Sheriff, when you refer to illegals in statements to
23
without permission, correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
We can play it again, if you'd like, but I think you
FR
09:50:05
09:51:08
2048
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
objected to having to ask someone any time you want to go lock
up some illegals, and my question is:
you were unhappy about as to the prospect of having a monitor
oversee your activities with respect to your immigration
enforcement?
A.
this segment that I use.
government taking over the office of the sheriff.
have used that as one -- many different crimes.
No.
Is that something that
09:51:35
I don't know if that, illegal immigration, was part of

I was concerned about the federal
And I may
Wasn't just
10
illegal immigration.
The management -- I can go on and on.
11
Q.
Do you have anything further to add to your answer?
12
A.
No.
13
to that portion, and I have.
14
Q.
15
having a monitor oversee your office, is that right?
16
A.
17
over my whole organization, the federal government running my
18
office in total.
19
Q.
So you settled your dispute with the DOJ, correct?
20
A.
Can you repeat?
21
Q.
Recently, just recently you reached an agreement with the
22
Department of Justice, correct?
I haven't seen the whole segment, but I will respond
You said that you would fight to the bitter end before
09:52:23
I was speaking on the Department of Justice wanting to take
IEN
DS
That's what I was talking about.
23
A.
Very proud of that agreement.
24
Q.
And that agreement came about in part because there is a
25
monitor currently overseeing your office under the orders of
FR
09:52:00
09:52:50
09:53:04
2049
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
this Court, is that right?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Relevance.
You may answer if you know.
THE WITNESS:
I'll agree the monitor is monitoring the
three positions that we agreed to.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
profiling issues that are similar to the issues, or identical
to the issues in this case, correct?
09:53:23
Well, the Department of Justice lawsuit involved racial
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
concerned with, there is currently a monitor overseeing your
13
office, is that right?
09:53:37
So at least as to that portion of what the DOJ was
MR. MASTERSON:
14
THE COURT:
15
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
16
Objection, foundation, relevance.
09:53:53
I don't know the legal aspects of a
17
transfer of that concept to our office regarding monitors.
18
BY MR. YOUNG:
19
Q.
20
when you were talking about monitors with the DOJ in 2012, that
21
you would fight to the bitter end, is that right?
22
A.
It was your view,
DS
Well, let me ask you again, Sheriff.
IEN
To take over the office of the sheriff completely, the
23
federal government taking over the office of the sheriff.
24
That's what I was responding to.
25
Q.
FR
09:54:12
And you said you would fight that to the bitter end, is
09:54:31
2050
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that right?
A.
sheriff, yes.
that to ever happen.
Q.
Arizona Republic article dated June 28, 2012.
quotation from you in it, and I'm going to ask you to take a
look at it.
put it up on the screen.
Taking over the office, the constitutional office of the
Sheriff, I'm going to show you an exhibit, which is an
It should be in a folder on your table or we can
09:55:12
will permit.
12
13
THE COURT:
What's the exhibit number?
MR. YOUNG:
2283.
Now, if we can blow that up a little bit on the
14
15
screen.
16
sheriff read the whole thing.
And feel free to scroll down.
THE WITNESS:
17
Actually, let the
09:55:31
Do you want me to read the whole thing?
18
BY MR. YOUNG:
19
Q.
20
like.
21
better if you read the whole thing.
22
A.
Yes, you can go ahead and read the whole thing if you'd
DS
I'm going to ask you some questions, and it might be
09:55:56
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
particular around June 28, 2012, the date of that article --
25
you knew that Judge Snow's brother-in-law worked at the
FR
09:54:48
It has a
Actually, let's put it up on the screen, if Your Honor
10
11
And I don't even think it would be legal for
Sheriff, before the trial in this action in 2012 -- and in
09:57:17
2051
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Covington & Burling law firm, correct?

MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
What is the relevance?
We've already
dealt with this in context -- in the context of the motion to
recuse.
I've denied that motion.

MR. YOUNG:
09:57:31
Understood, Your Honor.
This relates to
the sheriff's state of mind later on with respect to the
Montgomery investigation.
THE COURT:
9
10
Well, how does it relate to the
Montgom- -- oh, the Montgomery investigation?
11
12
13
14
MR. YOUNG:
Correct.
THE COURT:
Are you going to be able to tie this up?
MR. YOUNG:
I believe so, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
I'm going to give you a
15
limited leeway, but it's very limited.
16
motion to recuse that I've already ruled on.

MR. YOUNG:
17
We're not reopening the
09:57:52
Understood.
18
BY MR. YOUNG:
19
Q.
20
Snow's brother-in-law worked at Covington & Burling?
21
A.
22
me just say this.
DS
Did you know that fact, in June 2012, Sheriff, that Judge
09:58:04
IEN
It may have -- I didn't pay much attention to it, but let

My advice of my lawyer that we would not
23
oppose this.
24
Q.
25
confident in this judge and the judicial system, and I'm not
FR
09:57:42
The Arizona Republic story quotes you as saying, quote, I'm

09:58:25
2052
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
asking for the judge to be removed from this case.
Was that an accurate quotation?
A.
On advice of my lawyer, yes.
Q.
Now, you testified in the trial that happened in this case
following that story.
2012, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
There was evidence presented on both sides, right?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
office violated the Constitution, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Then in October -- specifically October 2, 2013 -- Judge
14
Snow issued a supplemental injunction where he decided he was
15
going to require certain changes in your office, and that would
16
include appointment of a monitor to oversee those changes.
The trial was in July and early August
Then the judge made a decision in May 2013 that your
09:58:56
09:59:17
Do you recall that?
17
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Now, that same month you, for the first time, heard about
20
Dennis Montgomery, correct?
21
A.
I believe so.
22
Q.
You had a meeting with Timothy Blixseth, Mike Zullo,
IEN
DS
18
23
Detective Mackiewicz, where you talked about Mr. Montgomery,
24
who was someone who used to work for a federal intelligence
25
agency, correct?
FR
09:58:45
09:59:37
09:59:58
A.
I'm not sure as to the date, but I believe we did meet.
Q.
Okay.
3
4
2053
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Let's take a look at Exhibit 2858.
THE COURT:
Was that 2858?
MR. YOUNG:
Yes.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
that indicates it's your office's response to July 22, 2015
monitor document request related to ITR 25.
10:00:26
And I'll tell you, Sheriff, this is a -- has a cover sheet
Do you have Exhibit 2858 in front of you, Sheriff?
9
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
you see a document with your signature on it?
13
A.
Do I have the right -- is it 2858?
14
Q.
Yes.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
That is your signature on that page?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
requests for documents, identifying dates, times, et cetera --
20
and I'm paraphrasing the first page -- relating to the Seattle
21
investigation?
22
A.
10:01:17
Is this your office's response to the monitor's
DS
IEN
FR
25
And if you look at the third page, MELC662425, do
10:01:35
Yes.
23
24
10:00:47
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, I'd move for the admission of
2858.
MR. MASTERSON:
Well, if he's moving in that one page
10:01:49
2054
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that the sheriff signed, I have no objection; if it's the rest
of the document, foundation.
MR. YOUNG:
Your Honor, the -- would you like argument
THE COURT:
Well, I guess I'd like argument, but I
on that?
5
6
don't have the exhibit in front of me, so I don't know how many
other pages there are, and I don't see that exhibit here in my
box.
MR. YOUNG:
Let me try to get that for Your Honor.
10
MR. YOUNG:
11
10:02:29
(Handing).
Your Honor, the sheriff has identified this document,
12
13
Exhibit 2858, as his office's response to the monitor's request
14
for information relating to dates, times, et cetera, of
15
meetings relating to the Seattle investigation, and I think
16
there's foundation for that in that testimony.

THE COURT:
17
18
Let me go back and see what his -- what
MR. MASTERSON:
Judge, I want to point out that you'll
note once you get down to I believe page 8 or 9, that we're
21
seeing different signature lines from different people that are
22
not this witness.
IEN
DS
20
24
FR
25
10:03:03
your question and his actual testimony was.
19
23
10:02:08
MR. YOUNG:
10:03:16
That's true, but the sheriff is able to
specify that his office responded -THE COURT:
Do you know what, gentlemen?
From now on,
10:03:33
2055
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'm going to strictly enforce my rule about one- or two-word
objections.
we'll do it at sidebar, which I hate to do.
congregation over there is as big as the rest of the crowd so
we might as well do it in open -- but I'm not going to do it in
open court.
And the
testimony was.
Please give me a minute.
THE COURT:
10
The exhibit is admitted.
10:04:39
11
12
13
THE CLERK:
That's 2858?
THE COURT:
2858 is admitted.
14
BY MR. YOUNG:
15
Q.
16
on the bottom right, 430 --
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
-- you'll see something that has a date of October 18,
19
2013, at 8:30 a.m.
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And actually, up at the top, Amy Lake, does she maintain
22
your calendar in Outlook?
Sheriff, if you look at the page with the last three digits
10:05:13
DS
IEN
10:04:51
Do you see that?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
The note says that you had an interview with Brian
25
Mackiewicz here in your office.
FR
10:03:51
So I'm going to look and see what the sheriff's
7
8
If you really feel like you need to expound, then
Do you see that?
10:05:29
2056
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that when you met with Detective Mackiewicz, Mr. Zullo,
and Timothy Blixseth with respect to Dennis Montgomery?
A.
It could be.
Q.
It could also be a different meeting.
saying?
A.
are talking about.
is.
Is that what you're
No, I only recall one meeting who would -- the parties you
The party.
"Blispit" or whatever his name
10
Q.
That meeting was in your office at your headquarters?
11
A.
I believe we met in a conference room --
12
Q.
And --
13
A.
-- probably Wells Fargo.
14
Q.
And Mr. Blixseth told you that he had been in contact with
15
an individual who had been employed by a federal intelligence
16
agency, is that right?
17
A.
18
information to turn over.
19
Q.
What information did he have to turn over?
20
A.
It had to do with thousands of computer information
21
penetrating the banking system, obtaining ID, money
22
transactions, many other private issues from people in the
10:06:18
10:06:36
IEN
DS
I believe that he said that, but he had a lot of
23
county, I believe 150,000, and elsewhere in this state.
24
Q.
Was Judge Snow mentioned during that meeting?
25
A.
No.
FR
10:05:53
10:06:51
10:07:26
2057
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Mr. Blixseth during that meeting explained that -- to
you -- that the former intelligence agency employee had
developed different software programs in order to gather large
amounts of data surreptitiously for the United States
Government, is that right?
A.
concerned about the number of names or victims that was
penetrated.
Q.
10:07:50
I'm not sure if he said for who or what, but I was
That was my main concern.
And that was a large amount of personal data that you
10
talked about, including banking information, is that right?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Did Mr. Blixseth provide you and Mr. Zullo and
13
Detective Mackiewicz with some memory sticks that contained
14
information that he said had been collected by the
15
U.S. Government?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
After that meeting, you directed Mr. Zullo and
18
Detective Mackiewicz to work with Mr. Montgomery, the former
19
intelligence agency employee, correct?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
You directed Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz to go to
22
Seattle to work with Mr. Montgomery, is that right?
10:08:36
10:08:55
DS
IEN
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
You knew that that person was Dennis Montgomery.
25
know the name at that point?
FR
23
10:08:14
Did you
10:09:16
2058
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm not sure if they mentioned that at the -- at that
meeting, his name.
eventually, of course, we knew what his name was.
Q.
of the investigation, is that right?
A.
I don't recall where.
Q.
Did Judge Snow's name come up in that conversation?
A.
No.
10
Q.
Approximately how long after your meeting with Mr. Blixseth
11
where Dennis Montgomery was first mentioned did you actually
12
meet with Mr. Montgomery himself?
13
few weeks?
14
A.
15
took place.
16
Q.
17
that right?
18
A.
I believe so.
19
Q.
Now, prior to the beginning of this investigation involving
20
Mr. Montgomery, you had worked with both Mr. Zullo and
21
Detective Mackiewicz on the birth certificate investigation,
22
correct?
You actually met Mr. Montgomery yourself at the beginning
10:09:37
I think he came here and we had a short meeting at a hotel;
Was it within a few days?
10:09:52
You know, I don't recall the time span when that meeting
10:10:13
IEN
DS
But it was way at the beginning of the investigation, is
23
A.
24
got involved in it.
25
Q.
FR
I'm a little confused who connected who but
I believe mainly Mr. Zullo.
10:10:31
I'm not sure what Mackiewicz
Well, as to Mr. Zullo, you had worked with him for several
10:10:49
2059
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
years on that investigation, is that correct?
A.
I believe we started in 2011.
Q.
So by October 2013, you had worked with him for a couple of
years, maybe, correct?
A.
With Zullo?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
to the work that he had done in helping protect you personally
And you had confidence in Detective Mackiewicz due
10
from threats, correct?
11
A.
12
personally, and my wife, because we arrested many people
13
accusing to kill me, and convicted, they were convicted, so I
14
had to respect his tenacity to get these people brought to
15
justice.
16
Q.
17
Sheridan also decided to have Sergeant Travis Anglin help and
18
work with Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Zullo, and Detective Mackiewicz,
19
is that right?
20
A.
21
sergeant on fraud and that type of investigative technique, so
22
decided to send him up to work with the other two.
Yes.
10:11:17
I think he probably was very important to me
10:11:46
Later on, not at the outset, but later on, you and Chief
IEN
DS
I think the chief deputy knew the background of the
23
Q.
24
correct, that you decided, or maybe Chief Sheridan decided,
25
based on Sergeant Anglin's experience with banking fraud, to
FR
10:11:07
10:12:03
When you say "fraud," that was banking fraud, is that
10:12:28
have him help with the investigation, is that right?
A.
activity he was knowledgeable of.
Q.
Are you finished with your answer?
A.
I think I answered your questions.
Q.
Could you take a look at Exhibit 2255, Sheriff.
I'm not sure whether it was just banking, but fraudulent
2255.
7
8
2060
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
10:12:48
And we can put it on the screen, actually, if
that would help.
Exhibit 2255, just for identification, is a New York
9
10
Times article dated February 18, 2011.
11
the time that you were working or that your people were working
12
with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
13
A.
14
date that was on the article.
15
Q.
16
working with Mr. Montgomery?
17
A.
I don't recall the time span.
18
Q.
The article is about Mr. Montgomery, and says various
19
things about his history with other government agencies.
Must have been sometime after.
You recall having that information during the time
21
that the Montgomery investigation was going on?
22
A.
IEN
It may have come up.
10:13:50
10:14:10
Once again, I don't remember when I
23
read that article.
24
Q.
You did read that article, though.
25
A.
I believe I did.
FR
10:13:24
I'm sure it wasn't that
Was it pretty early on in the time that your people were
DS
20
I don't recall when I read it.
You saw that article in
10:14:24
MR. YOUNG:
Okay.
THE WITNESS:
2061
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Your Honor, I move --
I'm sure if I read that one I know there
is another one.
MR. YOUNG:
Okay.
Your Honor, I move to admit
Exhibit 2255 not for the truth of the matters asserted within
it, but to show what the sheriff read with respect to
Mr. Montgomery.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
10
11
BY MR. YOUNG:
12
Q.
THE COURT:
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
Now, exhibit admitted.
14
15
BY MR. YOUNG:
16
Q.
17
Detective Mackiewicz in the investigation going on in Seattle
18
involving Mr. Montgomery, correct?
19
A.
20
by them verbally, nothing in writing.
21
expert.
22
computer in my life.
FR
25
10:15:09
Sheriff, you were supervising Mr. Zullo and
DS
I don't know, you keep saying "supervising."
IEN
24
10:14:53
Sheriff, you were --
13
23
10:14:35
I was briefed
And I'm not a computer
In fact, I don't have a computer.
10:15:25
Never used a
So I'm not very knowledgeable about
computers or the -- the English around computers.

So they're the ones that were using Montgomery with
the computers, and I sort of let them do what they felt was
10:15:51
2062
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
right, because I didn't understand most of the time what they
were talking about when you're dealing with computers.
Q.
reports from them on what they were doing with respect to
Mr. Montgomery?
A.
believed in their judgment and they did their job.
Q.
But you directed them to give you those updates, right?
A.
I don't know about directing.
Did you let them know that you wanted to receive verbal
10:16:15
Yeah, they let me know verbally what they were doing, and I
They would call me and give
10
me an idea what was going on.
11
Q.
12
informed about what you're doing?
13
A.
14
on occasions what was going on.
15
Q.
16
Mr. Montgomery.
17
updates on what they were doing with Mr. Montgomery?
18
A.
Yes, they were verbally giving me updates.
19
Q.
And you got those status updates periodically from
20
Mr. Zullo and Detective Mackiewicz about their work with
21
Mr. Montgomery, correct?
22
A.
10:16:39
And would you tell them, Thanks very much.
Well, I don't think I had to tell them.
Please keep me
They did tell me
Well, you originally sent them to go work with
DS
Did that initial assignment include giving you
10:17:16
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
at your office at particular times when he was in Phoenix,
25
correct?
FR
10:16:53
In fact, you would make appointments to meet with Mr. Zullo
10:17:33
2063
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I didn't meet with him very often, in my office or anywhere
else, but did a few times.
Q.
about what he was doing with Mr. Montgomery, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then other times you talked with him by phone, is that
right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That occurred throughout the course of the investigation,
A few times you did make appointments to meet Mr. Zullo
10:17:53
10
correct?
11
A.
I believe so.
12
Q.
Now, at the same time, you were also in frequent contact
13
with Mr. Zullo about the birth certificate investigation,
14
correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
There would be times when you would talk to Mr. Zullo in
17
the same telephone call or meeting about both what
18
Mr. Montgomery was doing and the birth certificate
19
20
A.
21
do with mainly the birth certificate.
22
Q.
DS
You know, I don't recall.
10:18:03
10:18:16
I think our phone calls had to
IEN
So you had -- you would have phone calls that were
23
specifically devoted to what Montgomery was doing, and then
24
other phone calls relating to the birth certificate?
25
A.
FR
10:18:31
I believe that when we did talk, it had quite a bit to do
10:18:51
2064
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
with the birth certificate.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I'm not saying it was not intermingled, I don't recall
that, but I know that when we're talking about the birth
certificate, it was sort of really separate.
Q.
Detective Mackiewicz, you became aware of a number of
hard drives containing information -- and there may be 50 of
them -- that Mr. Montgomery said that he had collected, is that
Was there ever --
During the course of your discussions with Mr. Zullo and
10
right?
11
A.
I think they discussed that with me.
12
Q.
I'm going to show you now Exhibit 2074A, which has been
13
previously admitted, so I'll ask the Court's permission to
14
publish it.
10:19:30
THE COURT:
15
You may do so.
16
BY MR. YOUNG:
17
Q.
18
Mr. Montgomery, correct?
19
A.
I believe so.
20
Q.
Do you see the fax line up at the top that says November 5,
21
2013, at 10:22 a.m.?
22
A.
10:19:48
DS
This is information that came to you and originated from
10:20:08
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
number there, 602-251-3877?
25
A.
FR
10:19:08
Now, going to the bottom of the page, do you see another
Yes.
10:20:29
Q.
Okay.
A.
You may not believe it.
this day, so if you say it is, it probably is.
Q.
at 92, Sheriff, and not publish 92 yet.
Sheriff, Exhibit 92 is a letter that you wrote on
April 23, 2012, commending Charley Armendariz, correct?

A.
Yes.
10:21:18
MR. YOUNG:
11
12
Okay.
Your Honor, I move for the
admission of Exhibit 92.

MR. MASTERSON:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
MR. COMO:
15
THE COURT:
16
No objection.
No objection.
No objection.
18
BY MR. YOUNG:
19
Q.
20
permission -- both Exhibit 2074A and Exhibit 92.
DS
So now let's put and publish -- with Your Honor's
agree with me that that fax number that's listed as being yours
23
is the same as the fax number at the bottom of Exhibit --
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
-- 2074A?
FR
10:21:37
And if we look at the top of Exhibit 92, will you
IEN
22
10:21:29
17
21
10:20:47
Well, 92 has not been admitted, but let's take a look
10
I never did check it out even to
And actually, if we can put both exhibits on the --
That's your fax number, isn't it?
Well, let's look at Exhibit 92.
2065
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
10:21:55
2066
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, the fax number at the bottom of Exhibit 2074, that's
not your handwriting, is that correct?
A.
I don't believe it is.
Q.
Now, let's go back up to the top of Exhibit 2074A, and we
can put away Exhibit 92.
I'm going to show you -- and I want you to focus on
7
8
the fax number that's shown here, 425-502-7617, do you see
that?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
been admitted and I'm -- therefore, should not be publish.
10:22:28
Let's look at Exhibit 2880.
And again, this has not
If we go to page 2 of Exhibit 2880 --
13
And I'll tell you that this is from a super reverse
14
15
lookup for telephone numbers.
10:22:55
Actually, before we get to the specific page, does
16
17
your office use databases to track down information on phone
18
numbers?
19
to try to find out who owns a particular phone number?
20
A.
I believe our detectives do.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
to give your office or to give your deputies data that's
IEN
DS
During your investigations do you ever have occasion
10:23:19
And so you -- you rely on that kind of information
23
relevant to the investigations that they're doing, right?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
10:22:04
So if we look at page 2 of Exhibit 2880, about in
10:23:38
2067
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the middle of the page do you see the name Dennis Montgomery
associated with the phone number that's on the top of
Exhibit --
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- 2074A?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Does that remind you that on November 5, 2013, you received
from Mr. Montgomery by fax Exhibit 2074A?
A.
Can't see the connection there.
10
Q.
Well, you'd agree with me that the phone number listed for
11
Mr. Montgomery and the phone number in the fax line on 2074A
12
are the same, right?
13
A.
Where is the -- the last number you mentioned on this form?
14
Q.
Well, I think we have some arrows pointing to the numbers
15
on the screen in front of you.
You do see that?
10:23:53
10:25:00
Do you see those two numbers?
16
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And both of them are 425-502-7617.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Does that remind you that on November 5, 2013, you received
21
this page, 2074A, on November 5, 2013, from Mr. Montgomery by
22
fax?
IEN
DS
Do you see that?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Did you ask Mr. Montgomery to send you this page?
25
A.
No.
FR
10:24:30
10:25:10
10:25:40
2068
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
That is your handwriting on the fourth line down where it
seems to say C-R-I-M question mark, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is that a reference to?
you wrote that on this page?
A.
investigating me, my office, criminally.
confused and wanted to know in my own mind whether this had
anything to do with the criminal investigation.
What were you thinking when
10:25:59
I think at the time the Department of Justice was
And I was just
Which, by the
10
way, it didn't go anywhere.
11
Q.
12
Where it says ACLU files Melendres lawsuit against Arpaio?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Now, you also see references to the Department of Justice
15
and to two officials in that department who used to be at
16
Covington & Burling, correct?
17
A.
18
to me.
19
Q.
You looked at it at the time, correct?
20
A.
I briefed through it, and the main thing that came out in
21
my head -- not saying it was true; in fact, I don't even know
22
if any of this is true -- but it had my telephone number and
10:26:44
You see the reference in the third line to this lawsuit?
Yes.
I didn't -- I didn't do this.
The informer sent this
IEN
DS
Had nothing to do with this.
23
the chief deputy's cell phone numbers with "Wiretap DOJ."
24
Q.
Which one of those is your phone number?
25
A.
Do I have to give it out to the whole audience?
FR
10:27:04
10:27:26
10:27:58
2069
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Well --
A.
It's my cell phone.
Q.
-- there's a -- maybe you can just tell me -- there are two
lines there that say DOJ Wiretap, correct?
A.
my phone number.
other four out.
Q.
was Chief Sheridan's, is that right?
10
A.
It has a wiretap number, whatever that is, and then it has
Okay.
Yes.
And I will say 602-920; maybe I can leave the
Well, one of them is yours, and one of them is or
10:28:39
THE COURT:
11
Can you indicate by the wiretap
12
number which one was yours?
13
different numbers --
THE WITNESS:
14
15
See the two wiretap entries have
Yes, Your Honor.
It's the -- it's
the -- ends with 34, the number.

THE COURT:
16
THE COURT:
18
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
19
BY MR. YOUNG:
20
Q.
21
that page relating to the Melendres lawsuit and Covington &
22
Burling, correct?
IEN
DS
Now, there are some other references, the bottom part of
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And then at the very bottom of the page there's a reference
25
to that October 2, 2013 date that we talked about earlier where
FR
10:28:52
That's yours?
THE WITNESS:
17
10:28:11
10:29:05
10:29:22
2070
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the judge decided to impose some further injunctive remedies,
including a monitor, correct?
A.
Yes.
THE COURT:
4
5
a time to look for a good breaking spot.

MR. YOUNG:
6
7
THE COURT:
10:29:46
This would be a fine time for a break,
All right.
We'll be back in 15 minutes.
We'll take the morning break.
Thank you very much.
(Recess taken.)
10
THE COURT:
11
10:33:25
Please be seated.
Should we take up Ms. Seagraves now?
12
13
We're about --
Your Honor.
8
9
Mr. Young, I don't know, but it's probably
deal?
MR. SEGURA:
14
15
Honor.
16
issues.
That's what we were hoping to do, Your
Prior to that we suggested having a sidebar about a few
THE COURT:
17
Is that the
All right.
(Bench conference on the record.)
18
MR. SEGURA:
19
So this relates to what we addressed, you
know, in the previous sidebar about the open criminal
21
investigation of Mackiewicz.
22
questions that I think go further into that investigation.
IEN
DS
20
10:50:06
I do intend to ask her some

So
23
I was proposing that we could close the courtroom for that part
24
of it, which I could do at the end.
FR
25
10:49:30
THE COURT:
Well, certainly you're going to need to
10:50:29
2071
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
move that part of the investigation to the end, and I think
you're going to -- if you want to close it, you're going to
have to establish a reason for closure.

MR. SEGURA:
Well, I was only doing that to be
accommodating to the witness.
THE COURT:
10:50:40
Well, it may be that the defendants don't
want it closed, and it may be even if they do I'm not going to
let it be closed, so we're going to have to raise that issue at
that time.
MR. SEGURA:
10
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
THE COURT:
14
Okay.
One other issue, your Honor --
Do you know --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
13
15
Very well.
One other issue --
-- I'm sorry.
This is not a great
microphone.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
THE COURT:
17
That's all right.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
I'm sorry.
One other issue that
Lieutenant Seagraves sometimes does undercover work, and she
20
expressed some concern at her deposition, we had forgotten
21
about that until a few moments ago.
23
said to me, "I really don't want my picture, you know, my
24
courtroom sketch --"
FR
25
10:51:02
Although she's -- she's okay with testifying, she just
IEN
22
DS
19
THE COURT:
Yeah.
10:51:15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
I don't know what -- I don't what we can
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Could we ask her?
10:51:19
I mean, I know you
can't say no --
THE COURT:
8
9
So how do I han- --
do about a courtroom sketch artist.
6
7
"-- or anything else."
Yeah.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
2072
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I can't say anything, but my advice to you
would be you ask her.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
THE COURT:
11
THE COURT:
13
THE COURT:
15
Or John will do it.
John, you can do that.
MR. MASTERSON:
14
10:51:29
Are you comfortable doing that?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
Okay.
(Nodding head).
All right.
Let me ask, when you get into
16
the Mackiewicz investigation, it seems to me that the sensitive
17
area's perhaps the subject of the criminal investigation.
18
it is criminal is known.
19
subject matter of the investigation?
21
THE COURT:
23
Are you going to delve into the
There are specific allegations -All right.
10:51:50
You got a view on that,
MR. POPOLIZIO:
Well, Your Honor, it is an open
24
criminal investigation and I would not want to jeopardize
25
Mr. Mackiewicz's defense in any way or the prosecution's
FR
That
Mr. Popolizio?
IEN
22
MR. SEGURA:
DS
20
10:51:35
10:52:09
investigation.
these -- to these areas or anything about his criminal
allegations.
I don't know if it's necessary to get into
THE COURT:
4
5
2073
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Well, I guess we'll just see as we go.
But if you can reserve all this to the end, that will be best.
MR. JIRAUCH:
Your Honor, one recommendation to
consider is whether or not we should contact his attorney -- he
has had an attorney.
when he was being investigated by the monitor -- and let her
10
12
THE COURT:
THE COURT:
MR. JIRAUCH:
16
THE COURT:
17
DS
THE COURT:
10:52:51
I don't know.
Ali Nash.
Ali Nash.
10:52:58
Well, do you want to take a minute right now and see
IEN
if you can call her and contact her?
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
MR. SEGURA:
25
MR. POPOLIZIO:
FR
Yes.
Yes.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
Is it a her?
Who is it?
MR. JIRAUCH:
18
Yeah.
-- just to let her know.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
22
You know, I think in general that's just
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
21
10:52:40
not a bad suggestion, just --
13
20
She has asserted constitutional rights
know that this is going to happen, if she could get here.
11
10:52:23
I could.
This is whose attorney?

Mackiewicz'.
10:53:00
THE COURT:
2074
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Mackiewicz's.
I mean, if we're talking about a --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Yes.
-- about getting into Mackiewicz's
internal investigation, I think it's not a bad idea to have his
attorney here.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
10
now.
No, I'll step out and do that right
10:53:17
THE COURT:
11
And I think I have her number.
Do you mind calling her?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
All right.
Why don't we just take an
12
additional minute while you do that, and then I'll come back on
13
the bench when you're ready.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
MR. SEGURA:
15
16
Okay.
And I don't think I'll get into this
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
THE COURT:
19
Well, you can let her know that.
Okay.
But, you know, she may want to be here for
the whole thing, and if she does, everybody else is here, so
21
why not her, right?
IEN
DS
20
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10:53:30
Okay.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
(Bench conference concluded.)
FR
10:53:23
before we break for lunch, if we break at the usual time.
17
22
10:53:08
Anything else?
No.
10:53:43
THE COURT:
1
2
2075
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
We'll resume court in about three or four
more minutes.
(Recess taken.)
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Please be seated.
I am informed, and tell me if I'm incorrect, that the
5
6
attorney we decided should be contacted at sidebar has been
contacted and can be here by 1:15?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.
All right.
That seems to me to be -- I
10
thought it was a good suggestion, makes sense to proceed that
11
way, but there isn't any reason we can't begin the testimony,
12
is there?
MR. SEGURA:
13
THE COURT:
14
16
THE CLERK:
Suzanne Kimberly Seagraves.
11:03:59
S-e-a-g-r-a- -THE CLERK:
I'm sorry.
23
THE WITNESS:
24
THE CLERK:
25
THE WITNESS:
FR
11:03:39
Please step right up here, ma'am.
THE WITNESS:
IEN
22
Plaintiffs call Lieutenant Kimberly
name for the record.
DS
21
Let's do that, then.
Can you please state and spell your first and last
18
20
All right.
Seagraves.
17
19
11:03:29
No, Your Honor, not that I'm aware of.
MR. SEGURA:
15
11:03:15
S-e-a- --
Your first name?

Suzanne, S-u-z-a-n-n-e; Kimberly,
11:04:07
K-i-m-b-e-r-l-y; Seagraves, S-e-a-g-r-a-v-e-s.

THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Mr. Segura.
MR. SEGURA:
Please take our witness stand.
Good morning, Lieutenant.
transcripts of her depositions.

her?
Would you mind if hand them to
11:04:59
THE COURT:
11
MR. SEGURA:
12
No.
(Handing).
SUZANNE KIMBERLY SEAGRAVES,
13
14
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
15
examined and testified as follows:
11:05:00
DIRECT EXAMINATION
16
17
BY MR. SEGURA:
18
Q.
19
background at the MCSO.
20
A.
Since April of 1993.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
A.
Yes.
Lieutenant, I'd like to start by briefly going over your
IEN
DS
How long have you been with MCSO?
Okay.
Q.
24
MCSO within that time, correct?
25
A.
Yes.
11:05:13
So that's about 22 years?
23
FR
11:04:34
Your Honor, before we begin, I have copies of her
10
Please raise your right hand.
witness.)
Thank you.
(Suzanne Kimberly Seagraves is duly sworn as a
3
4
2076
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Seagraves - DX Segura, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing
And you've held several positions throughout the
11:05:26
2077
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
A.
2008.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And as part of your positions within the MCSO you've done a
few stints within the Internal Affairs department, is that
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And when was the first time --
10
A.
Two thou --
11
Q.
-- you were with Internal Affairs?
12
A.
I'm sorry, 2004.
13
Q.
2004.
14
A.
Probably about a year.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
2013 I was temporarily assigned to Professional Standards
17
Bureau and then formally assigned there, and I left about a
18
month ago.
19
Q.
20
believe it was called the Professional Standards Bureau at the
21
time, is that right?
22
A.
And that's your current rank?
And then when were you next with Internal Affairs?
11:05:46
11:06:02
Was that the time that you were assigned to -- I
11:06:27
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
time of Mr. Armendariz's death?
25
A.
FR
11:05:35
And how long were you with Internal Affairs then?
DS
Okay.
And when did you become lieutenant?
At the time you were assigned back, was that around the
Yes.
11:06:35
2078
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
So would that have been around May of 2014?
believe you mentioned 2013 before.
A.
You're -- you're correct, yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
About a month ago.
Q.
And between -- prior to going back to the Professional
Standards Bureau, as it's -- as it's now called, you were with
the Special Investigations Division, is that right?
A.
Correct.
10
Q.
And how long were you there?
11
A.
A little over a year.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
Investigations at that time, right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And he asked you to come work with him at SID, is that
16
right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And what were your responsibilities as part of SID?
19
A.
I had two narcotic teams that worked for me.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And what do you mean by that?
And you were there until when?
IEN
11:06:47
11:07:04
And Captain Bailey was the head of Special
And did you do highway interdiction?
23
A.
24
transporting large amounts of narcotics.
25
Q.
FR
DS
Okay.
11:07:17
11:07:32
We work with DPS to take off vehicles that were
Okay.
And when you went from SID to PSB, you went around
11:07:46
2079
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the same time that Captain Bailey became the head of PSB, is
that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Okay.
worked in property and evidence, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And what were your responsibilities there?
A.
It's a warehouse, so responsible for the items coming and
going, items that were to be released, and it included the 3511
And during your time at NCSO -- MCSO, you've also
11:08:06
10
program, which is the towing of vehicles, and managing the
11
inventory and the staff to make that happen on a daily basis.
12
Q.
13
involved the proper inventory and handling of evidence that
14
comes into the office?
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
What was your first assignment at PSB when you returned in
17
May of 2014?
18
A.
19
of Charley Armendariz.
20
Q.
And what do you mean by an investigation into his death?
21
A.
A more comprehensive report in reference to his death.
22
had already been investigated in reference to the suicide, but
Okay.
And that -- and part of your responsibilities
11:08:41
IEN
DS
I was assigned to conduct an investigation into the death
23
more of a broader investigation involving friends, family,
24
co-workers, and neighbors.
25
Q.
FR
11:08:20
11:09:02
He
And when you say involving friends, family, and co-workers,
11:09:26
what do you -- what do you mean by that?
A.
a personal level and a professional level.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
Those that were associated with Armendariz that knew him on
And that was investigation 14-221, is that correct?
11:09:44
THE COURT:
I'm sorry, was that a yes?
THE WITNESS:
8
9
Yes, sir.
BY MR. SEGURA:
10
Q.
And you concluded that investigation, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And that was around December of 2014?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
And your conclusion from that investigation was that
17
Mr. Armendariz was telling lies, is that correct?
18
A.
He had told lies, yes.
19
Q.
That allegations that he had made were not truthful?
20
A.
In some cases no, yes.
21
Q.
And was there any discipline issued as a result of that
22
investigation, 14-221?
IEN
DS
11:10:02
A.
Discipline?
24
Q.
Sure.
FR
11:09:51
That investigation is not still open, correct?
23
25
2080
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
11:10:22
In reference to Armendariz?
Were there -- I can ask it a different way.

Were there any policy violations that were found as a
11:10:41
2081
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
result of 14-221?
A.
contact friends and family in reference to their personal
relationship with Armendariz and what they knew about the time
that he died.
was to find out a bigger, broader picture of what Armendariz
was about.
Q.
Mr. Armendariz, you were asked to stay on at PSB, is that
My primary objective for that was to, as I mentioned,
Okay.
So it wasn't to give discipline to anyone; it
And after your investigation of the death of
10
right?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And to work on the criminal side of the department,
13
correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And as part of that -- as part of your assignment, you
16
supervise two individuals, is that correct?
17
A.
At some point I did, yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
Deputy Dave Zebro, is that correct?
20
A.
Correct.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
a month ago, is that right?
11:11:14
DS
IEN
11:11:23
And that's Sergeant Dave Tennyson and I believe it's
11:11:45
And I believe you indicated that you left PSB about
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
And did Captain Bailey leave around the same time?
25
A.
Yes.
FR
11:11:01
11:12:00
2082
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Did you ever talk to Captain Bailey about why --
about why he left PSB?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you think that Captain Bailey was relieved to leave PSB?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
work with -- in working at PSB during that time?
Did you ever talk to Captain Bailey about the difficulty in
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Did you talk about there being too many deadlines, too much
12
work?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
to you that it was -- those deadlines and the amount of work
16
made it difficult to be a supervisor?
17
A.
18
manage.
19
Q.
Hard to manage everyone working at PSB?
20
A.
No.
21
them in a timely manner.
22
Q.
11:12:34
And did you ever talk to him -- did he ever express
11:12:48
Not specifically to be a supervisor, but overall, hard to
DS
The time frames that were given in order to complete
11:13:07
IEN
Did you ever talk to -- or did Captain Bailey express to
23
you in any way that he was having difficulty supervising while
24
at PSB?
25
A.
FR
11:12:17
Could you ask me that question again?
11:13:24
2083
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Sure.
Did he ever express to you any difficulty that he
was having in providing adequate supervision to those under --
under him while at PSB?
A.
No.
Q.
Okay.
When you first went to Internal Affairs --
I believe you mentioned it was in 2004, is that right?
6
7
A.
Yes.
Q.
-- you didn't receive any internal training, or training
provided by MCSO on how to conduct internal investigations, is
10
that correct?
11
A.
Are you asking me if I received training?
12
Q.
Yes, internally, that was provided by MCSO.
13
A.
I did attend training, but --
14
Q.
Training as to how to conduct internal investigations.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
You did?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And when did you receive that training?
19
A.
When I was there in 2004.
20
Q.
And where did you receive that training?
21
A.
Various different locations.
22
Q.
Was that training conducted by MCSO, or was it training
DS
IEN
11:14:07
11:14:27
23
conducted externally?
24
A.
Externally.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
11:13:42
So there was no internal training provided by MCSO.
11:14:33
11:14:48
2084
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
There was no program in place where MCSO would provide training
directly to those assigned to Internal Affairs.
A.
senior to me who I went to for advice, and that was a person
that was working there long -- you know, a longer period of
time.
Q.
Okay.
A.
So I considered that informal training.
Q.
Okay.
Well, I did pair up with another investigator who was more
But was there any formal training program provided
10
by MCSO when you first went there in 2004?
11
A.
Not that I can recall.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
Professional Standards Bureau, did you receive any training
14
from MCSO on how to conduct internal investigations?
15
A.
Formal training?
16
Q.
Yes.
17
A.
No.
18
Q.
While you were at PSB from May 2014 to -- I believe you
19
said just a month ago, could you describe the staffing within
20
that department?
21
A.
22
floor.
11:15:26
DS
And when you went back to what is now called the
11:15:49
11:16:10
IEN
I worked in the criminal side, so I was on a different

So the staffing was me, Dave Tennyson, and Dave Zebro.
23
Q.
24
Sergeant Tennyson and Deputy Zebro, is that correct?
25
A.
FR
11:15:14
Okay.
Yes.
So that's -- that was you, and then you supervising
11:16:34
2085
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
And so that would be a total, at some point, at
least, of three investigators for the criminal side, correct?
A.
after that, which included Lieutenant Swingle and Sergeant
Sparman, who also did criminal investigations.
Q.
administrative side of Internal Affairs while you were at PSB?
A.
I don't have a number for you.
Q.
Okay.
Yes, but we did have an Integrity Unit that came on shortly
And how many investigators were assigned to the
At one point there was only -- at some point Deputy
10
Zebro left PSB, is that correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And so for a time there was only Sergeant Tennyson as an
13
investigator on the criminal side, is that correct?
14
A.
Correct.
15
Q.
Yes.
16
investigator when there were only two under you, that must have
17
had an impact on your workload, correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
I'd like to ask you a few questions about how the
20
Internal Affairs process works at MCSO, based on your
21
experience at PSB.
Working for me.
DS
So I'd like to -- I guess that -- your losing an
23
investigations have to be completed, is that right?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Do you know what that time line is?
FR
11:17:39
11:17:55
11:18:15
There is a time line by which administrative
IEN
22
11:16:56
11:18:31
2086
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
180 days.
Q.
Okay.
relates to an administrative investigation, does that pause or
toll that time frame in which the administrative investigation
needs to be completed?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
pause that time frame, correct, if there are extenuating
circumstances that you need more time to do the investigation?
And when a criminal investigation is commenced that
11:18:49
And there are other circumstances that can sort of
10
A.
I don't think I understand your question.
11
Q.
Sure.
12
administrative investigation could go longer than 180 days?
13
A.
14
situations, yes, administratively.
15
Q.
16
case, they receive a notice, I believe it's called a notice of
17
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
of investigation to the principal, informing them of the
21
allegations, correct?
Are there other reasons why an investiga- -- an
I worked on the criminal side, so there -- there are
When a principal is identified in an administrative
MR. POPOLIZIO:
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
24
Q.
FR
25
11:19:24
And it's the practice of MCSO to provide the notice
DS
Okay.
IEN
22
11:19:04
11:19:45
Objection, foundation, Your Honor.
Based on your experience while at PSB.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
Your Honor, I believe it goes to her
11:20:02
knowledge, but she's only been on the criminal side, if I
followed the testimony.

THE COURT:
3
4
2087
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you want to lay any foundation if
you're talking about administrative investigations?

MR. SEGURA:
I am talking about adminis- --
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
your time?
A.
During the Armendariz case, yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
administrative investigations?
12
A.
2004, yes.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
MCSO Internal Affairs to provide a principal with a notice of
15
investigation setting forth the allegations against them?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
interview of the principal, it's the practice of the MCSO to
19
provide that principal with documents associated with the
20
21
A.
22
laws in place, so my experience in 2004 would be different than
Have you worked on any administrative investigations during
And how about in 2004, did you work on
DS
IEN
11:20:39
And in addition to that notice, prior to an
If I can expound a little.
today's date.
24
primarily on the criminal side.
25
Q.
Okay.
11:20:20
And based on that experience, is it the practice of
23
FR
11:20:14
11:21:02
In 2004, there weren't certain
So I just want to clarify that I worked
Let me show you what has been previously admitted as
11:21:25
2088
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Exhibit 2881.
I believe it should be in towards -- probably
towards the end of that pile of manila folders on your right.

THE CLERK:
MR. SEGURA:
THE CLERK:
Ma'am, it's the pile to your left, ma'am.

Pile to the left.
It will actually be toward the top.
6
7
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
could -- is that the Internal Affairs -- MCSO Internal Affairs
So if you could take a look at that document, and we
10
policy?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And you're familiar with that policy?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
at PSB on the administrative investigation involving
16
Mr. Armendariz, is that right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And did you work on any other administrative
19
investigations?
20
A.
Other than relating to Armendariz, no.
21
Q.
When you say "relating to Armendariz," do you mean only
22
14-221, or other investigations stemming from Armendariz?
11:22:47
And I believe you mentioned earlier that you worked
DS
IEN
23
A.
24
under 221.
25
Q.
FR
11:22:12
11:23:02
11:23:18
Other investigations stemming from Armendariz could be
Is there an investigation involving an allegation of
11:23:40
2089
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
pocketing by another MCSO employee?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so with that background in mind, is it your
understanding that when -- before a principal is interviewed as
part of an Internal Affairs investigation administratively,
they're provided with all documentation that MCSO has on the
allegations?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
And that's to -- is that to prevent employees
10
from lying during their investigations?
11
A.
12
the investigation is concerning.
13
Q.
14
departmental records, is that right?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
It could, yes.
18
Q.
You can see there there may be some -- let me ask you,
19
would you have any con -- do you have any concern that by
20
providing these documents to a principal in advance of their
21
investigation, they may have then an opportunity to line up
22
their story with the documents prior to the interview?
11:24:42
It's to provide them with documentation so they know what
And that documentation includes incident reports and
11:25:06
IEN
DS
Okay.
23
A.
24
investigation.
25
Q.
FR
11:24:03
Do I have an issue with that?
11:25:17
It's an administrative
No, I don't.
So you don't have any concern with that?
11:25:42
2090
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I do not.
Q.
Now, the document I was just showing you, Exhibit 2881,
which is, I believe, referred to as GH-2 within MCSO, that also
contains the policy on criminal Internal Affairs
investigations, is that right?
A.
Yes.
MR. SEGURA:
7
8
exhibit?
THE COURT:
9
10
BY MR. SEGURA:
11
Q.
Your Honor, could we publish this
You may.
11:26:26
Would you turn to page 9 of that exhibit.
It's MELC1306924 is the page I'm referring to.
12
So there at the bottom, 2.A, is that the beginning of
13
14
the policy on criminal Internal Affairs investigation?
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And it's just what's in section 2.A, is that right?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
That's the extent of the policy on criminal
21
Internal Affairs investigations?
22
A.
11:27:08
DS
And then it continues on to the next page, correct?
11:27:24
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
interests -- of interest should be handled in Internal Affairs
25
investigations by MCSO?
FR
11:26:09
Okay.
Are you aware of any policy on how conflicts of
11:27:42
2091
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't believe so, no.
Q.
Now, focusing just on the -- on the criminal side of IA,
obviously sometimes referrals for prosecution are made as a
result of internal investigations to the county attorney,
right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
rises to the level of meeting a criminal statute and could
potentially be prosecuted, is that correct?
11:28:12
And that's when MCSO has made a decision that it
10
A.
With the support of evidence, yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
decides not to refer an Internal Affairs investigation for
13
prosecution, those determinations are not always sent to the
14
county attorney for review, correct?
15
A.
16
not enough evidence, are not.
17
Q.
18
investigation for prosecution, is there always a report made
19
documenting that investigation?
20
A.
You said "internal."
21
Q.
On the criminal side.
22
A.
Okay.
And then on the -- on the flip side, when MCSO
The cases that don't meet an element of a crime, or there's
IEN
Are you referring to a criminal?
11:29:23
Could you repeat that again?
23
Q.
24
refer an internal investigation for prosecution, is a report
25
produced documenting the investigation?
FR
Sure.
11:28:49
And when a decision is made not to refer an internal
DS
Okay.
11:28:27
On the criminal side, when a decision is made not to
11:29:36
2092
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
But that report isn't always forwarded to the county
attorney, correct?
A.
Again, unless it meets the element of a crime.
Q.
Okay.
exhibits.
1001.
Show you what's hopefully at the top of your
This is an exhibit that's been previously admitted,
(Cell phone heard in courtroom.)
THE COURT:
Mr. Jirauch, you can leave the courtroom.
10
You can come back when you have left your cell phone outside
11
the courtroom.
MR. JIRAUCH:
12
Sorry, Your Honor.
14
BY MR. SEGURA:
15
Q.
16
to ask you specifics about it; I just want to know if you've
17
seen this document before.
It's on the -- it's actually on your screen.
I'm not going
hard copy, that's fine.
20
A.
I don't believe I have, no.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
investigation is not referred for criminal prosecution but
IEN
DS
19
FR
25
11:30:37
It may be easier if you just want -- if you want the
18
24
11:30:13
13
23
11:29:51
11:30:58
We were just discussing reports produced when an
there's still a report produced.

Is this what one of those reports would look like when
a decision is made not to refer it for prosecution?
11:31:14
2093
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Initially when I got there, that is the format, but when I
left it was more the regular format of just a standard MCSO
report.
Q.
And this would not be a standard MCSO report?
A.
No, this is a memorandum.
Q.
Okay.
investigation is done administratively, or criminally, a report
is produced about the investigation, correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And that report includes a summary of the investigation, is
11
that right?
12
A.
Which -- which one?
13
Q.
Is there a difference between the two?
14
A.
No, but I am speaking about a criminal case?
15
you mean?
16
Q.
17
that you've -- the ones that you've worked on.
11:31:31
And while we're on the topic of reports, when an
Is that what
11:32:17
Let's start with administrative investigations and the ones
When an internal administrative investigation is
18
19
completed a report is produced, correct?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And that has a cover page with the number of the
22
investigation, followed by a summary of the investigation?
IEN
DS
11:32:33
23
A.
24
on administrative cases we did -- I did not see what other
25
administrative cases looked like.
FR
11:31:56
If I can clarify something.
During my time in PSB working
We were using a special
11:32:49
2094
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
format that was approved by the monitors and the Court, so
that's the standard I used.
administrative folks did while I was there.
Q.
Okay.
So I can't speak about what other
Fair enough.
Using just based on your experience and what you've
5
6
done, there would be a report produced, a cover page, and there
would be like a summary of findings, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then included in that report would be any transcripts
10
of interviews that were conducted?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And any relevant documentation that was also part of the
13
re -- of the investigation, such as incident reports, things
14
like that?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
A.
In reference to the Armendariz case, yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
part of Internal Affairs, right?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
Internal Affairs to produce a similar report?
And you would help compile those reports, right?
But that would be part of your responsibility as
DS
IEN
11:33:19
11:33:34
11:33:50
And that would be the responsibility of others at
23
A.
24
them so I'm only going on what I did.
25
Q.
FR
11:33:05
Again, my assumption would be yes, but I didn't work with
Okay.
How did the monitor-approved format differ from --
11:34:03
of reports differ from what was being done before?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Foundation.
You can ask her if she knows.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
If you know.
A.
I do not know.
Q.
Okay.
also produced reports, correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
responsibilities as Internal Affairs investigators?
11:34:31
Other staff members of Internal Affairs produced --
And that was just part of their general
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
THE COURT:
13
11:35:00
Foundation.
Sustained.
14
BY MR. SEGURA:
15
Q.
16
of Internal Affairs, a member of the Internal Affairs
17
department to investigate cases of policy violations?
18
A.
Yes, that's a portion, yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
investigation a report should be made documenting that
21
22
A.
Do you know if the responsibility -- is the responsibility
11:35:18
DS
And as part of that responsibility, after the
11:35:43
IEN
Administratively?
23
Q.
Yes.
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
2095
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I believe I may have mentioned this before, but
11:35:52
2096
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
you're familiar with an investigation involving allegations
that HSU members were pocketing various items during
operations?
A.
Am I aware?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And these allegations were based on statements that had
been made by a deputy that's no longer at MCSO, Cisco Perez, is
that correct?
11:36:15
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And that investigation, the allegations included things
12
taken such as, I believe, religious trinkets or statues,
13
correct?
14
A.
15
said, I don't recall.
16
Q.
Did you work on this investigation?
17
A.
I did.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
the items that were investigated?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
large TV that had been pocketed?
11:36:33
I don't remember exactly what his allegation was; what he
IEN
DS
Do you remember religious statues being a part of
11:37:07
And do you recall there being a statement about a
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
administrative investigation or a criminal investigation?
FR
11:36:57
And was that investigation started as an

11:37:24
A.
Criminal.
Q.
Show you what has been marked as Exhibit 2004.
yet in evidence.
It is not
Is this a memorandum from you to Captain Bailey?
Oh, do you have the exhibit in front of you?
It's
Exhibit 2004.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
a suspension of administrative interviews, is that right?

Yes.
And is this -- in this memorandum you're suggesting
A.
11
purpose for my request.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
I did.
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
19
No objection.
The County has no objection.
No objection.
2004 is admitted.
DS

MR. SEGURA:
Okay.
23
Q.
24
Cisco Perez investigation was started administratively or
25
criminally?
FR
11:38:49
BY MR. SEGURA:
IEN
22
11:38:39
MR. JIRAUCH:
18
21
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
11:38:27
You drafted this memorandum, correct?
Exhibit 2004.
16
20
Not just suspend indefinitely, but there was a
MR. SEGURA:
14
11:37:59
My apologies.
10
15
2097
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And does this refresh your recollection as to whether the
11:39:01
A.
Do you have a full copy, please, that I can review?

MR. SEGURA:
2
3
2098
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
My understanding is that what we were
provided was only a page -THE WITNESS:
MR. SEGURA:
Thank you.
-- document.
11:39:15
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
10
Mr. Segura?
Yes.
The witness appears to be ready to me.

Oh, I'm sorry.
I have my question
11
hanging.
12
BY MR. SEGURA:
13
Q.
14
investigation as to the allegations made by Cisco Perez was
15
started administratively?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And was it started administratively first?
18
A.
Initially it was started first, and then it was stopped and
19
criminal investigation began.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
Does this refresh your recollection as to whether the
IEN
DS
And you made that recommendation, correct?
11:40:22
11:40:36
And you did that because you wanted it to be clear
23
to deputies that -- that there was going to be a criminal
24
investigation.
25
A.
FR
11:40:13
Confusion?
You didn't want any confusion, right?

11:40:52
Q.
As to whether it was administrative or criminal?
A.
That was part, yes.
Q.
Okay.
during -- during the criminal investigation that their
statements weren't compelled, correct?
A.
statement, yes.
Q.
investigated criminally, correct?
And you were concerned the deputies should know that
Okay.
And you felt that this investigation needed to be
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
deputies were taking things that didn't belong to them,
13
that was potentially serious, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
It could be criminal, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
investigation?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And you thought that because this was a unit that was
21
still -- let me back up.
11:41:30
And that's because if the allegations were true that
11:41:43
DS
And you considered this to be a priority
11:41:54
IEN
The allegations involved members of the Human
23
Smuggling Unit, correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
11:41:04
I didn't want there to be confusion on a compelled
10
22
2099
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And you thought this investigation was a priority
11:42:13
because that unit was still intact, correct?
A.
That was not my thought, no.
Q.
Could you turn to your -- the transcript of your
deposition, the first deposition on September 3rd, 2015.

Should be the -- the larger one.
Okay.
Do you see on line 13 where I asked you:
"Would you say that this was a priority investigation?"

You see that?
9
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you said:
11:43:22
"Yes."
And I asked:
12
And you said:
13
"Why would you say that?"
"Well, because you have an allegation
14
of a squad who's still intact, and possibly the allegation was
15
that they were taking things, so that would be inappropriate,
16
possibly illegal."
11:43:34
Do you see that?
17
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Was your deposition testimony there accurate?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And this was a -- how many deputies were investigated as a
22
result of this investigation?
IEN
DS
18
11:43:43
Do you have a -- do you know?
23
A.
The Cisco Perez investigation?
24
Q.
Yes.
25
A.
Quite a few.
FR
11:42:59
And could you turn to page 136.
2100
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I don't know how many.
11:44:01
2101
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Do you know if there was more than 50?
A.
Well, it may involve one deputy with many different aspects
to it, so more than 50, yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
Tennyson, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
So you'd characterize it as a large investigation?
11:44:20
And that investigation was assigned to Sergeant
And do you believe that Sergeant Ten- -- it was
10
sufficient for Sergeant Tennyson alone to be assigned to that
11
investigation?
12
A.
13
something different, so I don't know what -- what parameters he
14
had, so I can't answer that.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
Not during the entire time I was working on Armendariz.
17
wasn't until February of this year that I actually became his
18
supervisor.
19
Q.
20
investigation, right?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And do you believe it was sufficiently staffed, having been
He was not working under me at that time, I was doing
You were his lieutenant, though, correct?
It
11:45:15
assigned to Sergeant Tennyson?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE COURT:
FR
11:44:58
But you're aware that he was assigned this
DS
Okay.
IEN
23
11:44:40
Foundation, Your Honor.
Sustained.
11:45:29
2102
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
MCSO, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you've had to assign investigations to staff, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you have to determine how many staff to place on a
certain investigation, correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
believe that this investigation was properly staffed by having
12
assigned it to Sergeant Tennyson?
13
MR. POPOLIZIO:
You've had experience supervising investigations while at
And based on that experience, is it -- do you
THE COURT:
14
I think you're going to have to establish
that she's familiar with Sergeant Tennyson's work at the time
16
if you want me to admit that testimony.

MR. SEGURA:
Okay.
11:46:23
Sure.
18
BY MR. SEGURA:
19
Q.
20
Tennyson, correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And you're familiar with his work?
IEN
DS
Are you familiar with -- you've worked with Sergeant
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
A.
At some point, yes.
FR
11:46:01
15
17
11:45:50
11:46:35
And you've supervised his work?

11:46:42
2103
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
And based on your experience supervising Sergeant
Tennyson, do you believe it was sufficient for that
investigation involving the Cisco Perez allegations to be
assigned to Sergeant Tennyson?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
I can't answer that because I wasn't
even part of that portion, and I wasn't even in proximity to
where he was at working, and I can't answer that.
10
BY MR. SEGURA:
11
Q.
Do you have an opinion, based on your experience?
12
A.
I can't answer that based on I don't know.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
allegations made by Cisco Perez?
15
A.
Which ones?
16
Q.
The allegations of other HSU members pocketing items.
17
A.
Criminally or internally?
18
Q.
You mean administratively, or --
19
A.
Yes, I'm sorry.
20
Q.
Let's start with administratively.
21
of that investigation?
22
A.
11:47:10
DS
What were the results of the investigation into the
11:47:29
What were the results
11:47:48
IEN
I think there was some sustained allegations --
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
-- of policy violations.
25
Q.
And do you know against whom?
FR
11:46:57
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
11:47:56
2104
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I do not.
Q.
And do you know how many?
A.
I do not.
Q.
What were the results of the criminal investigation?
A.
My memory is that there -- there was no prosecution of any
deputy.
Q.
investigation as to whether, in order for prosecution, there
needed to be an identifiable victim and an identifiable value
Okay.
Are you aware of a question that came up during this
10
of the item taken?
11
A.
I think you mentioned it.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
heard of any issue with regards to the value of the item or
14
whether victims could be identified?
15
A.
16
or how I came to know that.
17
Q.
18
investigation involving Cisco Perez's allegations of pocketing,
19
whether there were any efforts to identify victims of those --
20
of these pocketing allegations?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Can you turn to page 148 of your deposition transcript.
DS
IEN
11:48:50
Are you aware of any efforts, as part of the
A.
The same date?
24
Q.
The same date, yes.
FR
I don't have any memory of that.
So prior to my mentioning in deposition, you hadn't
23
25
11:48:33
I might have in general form, but I can't say where or when
Okay.
11:48:10
"Okay.
11:49:36
So on line 5, do you see where I ask:
Do you know if there was any -- if there were
11:50:13
2105
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
efforts made to identify individuals of whom certain items were
taken as part of the Cisco Perez investigation?"

You said:
I said:
"Yes."
And then you were asked:
5
6
"You mean the -- the criminal part --"
doing?"
"I don't know"?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was your deposition testimony accurate?
10
A.
If I can say that I have not reviewed this.
11
night before last, and I haven't had a chance to look through
12
it.
I received it
Q.
Sure.
My question is whether you're aware of any efforts
15
made to identify individuals from whom certain items may have
16
been pocketed.
17
A.
May I clarify?
18
Q.
You may.
19
A.
I said, No, I don't, on page -- on line 12, but I do recall
20
that we did do that.
21
Q.
That's on the criminal side?
22
A.
Administrative side is what I worked.
IEN
DS
14
23
Q.
24
deposition transcript I asked you:
FR
11:50:41
Can you repeat your question?
13
25
11:50:26
I believe referring to Tennyson and Zebro.

And you said:
"... that Dave and Dave were
Okay.
11:50:58
11:51:25
On line 13 of your -- of the same page of your
"How about on the administrative side?"
11:51:44
And your answer was:
2106
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
"No on the administrative side."
Is that correct?
2
3
A.
That's what I said, but now as I sit here, there were times
that we did do that, yes, administrative side.
Q.
criminal side, you aren't aware of any efforts to identify
victims, is that correct?
A.
I know that there was some done on the criminal side as well.
So you said you did it on the administrative side; on the
I said no, but since I've, you know, had our conversation,
10
Q.
11
side to identify individuals from whom items were taken?
12
A.
13
purse.
14
Q.
15
identified?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And were they contacted?
18
A.
Attempt to, yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
A.
I didn't personally do it, but I'm aware that family
21
members of some of the individuals were contacted, yes.
22
Q.
And what were the efforts that were made on the criminal
11:52:51
In reference to -- what comes to mind is the $260 and the

I believe there were two purses.
And as a result of those efforts were individuals
11:53:28
Were you able to speak to those individuals?
DS
Okay.
11:53:37
IEN
And other than those two instances, are you aware of any
23
other instances in which individuals were contacted to see if
24
they were the owners of certain items?
25
A.
FR
11:52:16
There may have, I just don't know, but those are the things
11:53:57
2107
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that came to mind.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Thank you.
Q.
I believe you just -- you mentioned $260, a missing $260.
That's all I'm asking, what you're aware of.
You were just referring to that, correct?
5
6
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And there was an investigation over this missing amount of
money, correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And that investigation involved -MR. SEGURA:
11
raise this.
13
Only at the time.
14
but I haven't addressed it with opposing counsel.
17
Can you say that so it can go on the
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
DS
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
It can be removed.
Thank you.
I'm not sure.
IEN
22
You need to talk into a microphone.
11:55:04
It can be removed.
Thank you, Mr. Popolizio.
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
24
Q.
25
Deputy Cosme, is that correct?
FR
11:54:59
record, please?
19
21
I believe that should probably be removed,
THE COURT:
18
20
Exhibit 2004 has Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes
(Off-the-record discussion between counsel.)
16
11:54:27
Or actually, Your Honor, I failed to
12
15
11:54:18
So that investigation about a missing $260, that involved a

11:55:18
2108
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
And there was money that had been found, or an envelope
that had -- that had been found within the Enforcement Support
building that indicated that there was $260, but there was no
money within the envelope, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And you were able to link the envelope to a specific
operation, right?
A.
I don't recall if it was related to an operation or if it
10
was just a traffic stop, I don't know.
11
Q.
12
specific traffic stop, correct?
13
A.
An event, yes, I don't...
14
Q.
Okay.
15
vehicle that was potentially involved in human smuggling?
16
A.
I don't remember, but that would be logical, yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
stop, do you recall that some of the individuals were arrested
19
and some were transferred to ICE?
20
MR. POPOLIZIO:
23
24
FR
25
11:55:55
I meant you were able to link it to a
And that traffic stop involved a load vehicle, a
11:56:08
And as part of that load -- as part of that vehicle
THE COURT:
11:56:32
He's asking only if she recalls, or if she
has an understanding, that's how I'm going to interpret it, so
IEN
22
That's what I meant.
DS
21
11:55:37
I'll allow the question.

But I will instruct the witness to answer it yes or
no; if you can answer the question yes or no, to answer it that
11:56:44
way.
THE WITNESS:
2109
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sir, could you repeat the question?
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
some of the individuals were arrested by MCSO and some were
transferred to ICE?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
were transferred to ICE?
Sure.
Do you recall whether, as part of that vehicle stop,
And that is true, that some were arrested and some
10
A.
That's my memory, yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
13
A.
I believe so, yes.
14
Q.
And you supervised him on this investigation?
15
A.
I don't know if I did or I didn't.
16
was the time frame that he -- because I was doing the
17
administrative investigation on that portion, so I don't think
18
I would supervise him.
19
Q.
20
Sergeant Tennyson around February of 2015, is that correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
If you'd turn to Exhibit 2010, which is not yet admitted
IEN
23
FR
And this investigation was conducted by Sergeant
I don't know if that
11:57:28
I believe you said that you started supervising
11:57:47
into evidence.
24
25
11:57:05
DS
Okay.
11:56:53
sure.
It may be the large exhibit in the binder, I'm not

11:58:22
THE COURT:
I'm just looking for a good time to stop
for lunch when you get there.
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
investigation.
Yeah, I'm just starting this
All right.
We will break for lunch.
I do want to see the parties again at sidebar as folks
leave the room.
11:58:44
Ms. Seagraves, you can be back 1:15.
11
THE WITNESS:
12
THE COURT:
13
Thank you.
All right.
Please do so.
(Bench conference on the record.)
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. SEGURA:
16
THE COURT:
17
Where is Mr. Segura?
11:59:43
I'm right here.
Move closer, please.
Here is going to be my suggestion.
18
Whether or not you
take something under seal requires a real delicate balance, and
20
if it's in trial it requires compelling reasons.
21
me that it's conceivable that law enforcement investigation, an
22
ongoing law enforcement investigation could provide such
IEN
DS
19
It seems to
23
reasons, but it may be that we have to proceed on a
24
question-by-question basis.
FR
25
11:58:33
Let's be back at 1:15.
9
10
Is this a good place?
It's a good place.
THE COURT:
7
8
We can break here, Your Honor.
MR. SEGURA:
5
6
2110
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I don't think it's necessarily fair to Mr. Popolizio
11:59:57
12:00:11
2111
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
to make him -- to spring the questions on him question by
question.
necessarily want to advertise the topics of your investigation.
At the same time, you know, I know you don't
But I think that you ought to, over lunch, see if you
4
5
can clarify the questions that you think might implicate the
ongoing investigation, isolate them, so that if I'm going to
take anything under seal I'm going to take it as a very
isolated part of the testimony, provide them to Mr. Popolizio
and the other parties, including Mr. Mackiewicz's counsel when
10
she shows up, so that if they're going to be able to formulate
11
an argument to overcome the compelling reasons, based on the
12
question-by-question basis they can have a few minutes to think
13
about it.
MR. SEGURA:
15
Well, I would likely say that the
16
entirety will -- it will need to be asked, just because -- I
17
mean, and we can discuss this over lunch and get back to you,
18
but the basis is this involves Detective Mackiewicz, who was
19
involved in the Montgomery investigation.
DS
THE COURT:
Well, if you're conceding that you think
compelling reasons are met, you can tell me.
22
make an independent determination.
IEN
12:00:59
Our --
21
12:01:18
I still have to
But I think that you can --
23
if you're going to concede that some of these questions need to
24
be under seal and meet the compelling interest standard, I
25
would appreciate your evaluation on that, too.
FR
12:00:48
Do you have any problem doing that?
14
20
12:00:29
12:01:30
But I will tell you that because I have an independent
1
2
obligation as I read the Ninth Circuit law, you're going to
have -- I'm going to have to make that determination and I
would rather know beforehand.
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
Okay.
12:01:44
All right?
(Lunch recess taken.)
THE COURT:
8
9
2112
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
You can hold back, Ms. Seagraves.
I'm
going to see all the parties for a minute.

(Bench conference.)
10
THE COURT:
11
13:20:36
All right.
Ms. Nash?
12
MS. NASH:
13
Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
14
MS. NASH:
15
You're Mr. Mackiewicz's criminal attorney?
I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
16
All right.
I had been provided over the
lunch hour at my request, by Mr. Segura, the topics in which he
18
intends to go in his examination.
19
them are, because I haven't been -- I haven't been involved in
20
pretrial discovery.
I don't know what some of
13:21:00
What is 2842?
MR. SEGURA:
IEN
22
DS
17
21
That is a conversation between Sergeant
23
Tennyson and Mackiewicz in August of this year regarding this
24
investigation.
FR
25
13:20:43
THE COURT:
And how does Seagraves know anything about
13:21:13
it?
MR. SEGURA:
2
3
Tennyson has indicated that she -- that
he -- she okayed him to call Mackiewicz.

THE COURT:
4
5
2113
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
All right.
Did it have anything to do
with the topic of the criminal investigation?

MR. SEGURA:
13:21:25
It has to do with Ms. McKessy generally.
I don't believe it discusses the specific allegation.
addresses that he was placed on administrative leave, and then
has some to do with Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio.

THE COURT:
10
11
Okay.
It
What is the Jennifer Johnson
memorandum, Exhibit 2016?

MR. SEGURA:
12
That is a memorandum in which
13
Ms. Johnson, who I understand to be an analyst, closed out the
14
investigation.
THE COURT:
15
Now, I understood, and maybe I
16
misunderstood, that there is both a criminal and an
17
administrative investigation.
MR. SEGURA:
19
IEN
22
23
All right.
MR. SEGURA:
Although it's not always clear to me.
THE COURT:
Let me just tell you, Ms. Nash, I don't
13:22:06
know if you've seen this.
24
MS. NASH:
25
THE COURT:
FR
I believe this is the criminal.
THE COURT:
DS
21
13:21:56
Which investigation are we talking about?
18
20
13:21:46
I have, Your Honor.

But it seems to me that the awareness of
13:22:15
2114
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
the investigation is not going to be able to meet the
requirement, in light of the fact that everybody's aware that
there's an investigation.
But the nature of the criminal allegations, the
4
5
initiation of the investigation, the investigation by Tennyson
and Zebro, the interview of McKessy, the adequacy of the
investigation, strike me as all topics that maybe need to go
under seal.
Do you have anything to be said about that?
MS. NASH:
10
I would first request, Your Honor, that you
11
not even let the witness get into that even under seal.
12
think that as the accused, he has significant rights that could
13
be jeopardized.
14
investigation, frankly, the nature and substance of which I'm
15
not even fully aware of.
There still is an ongoing confidential
17
cannot be clarified without stomping on my client's rights with
18
respect what is the administrative investigation, and what is
19
the criminal investigation?
MS. NASH:
What rights?
13:23:13
Your Honor, if anything were to come out or
23
severely prejudiced, there could be some collateral damage that
24
I'm not ready -- that I wouldn't be aware of at this point, and
25
I think that his right to a fair trial, if there is any kind of
FR
13:22:48
stipulate that nothing was under seal, I think that he would be
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
21
13:22:41
I also think that there may be some confusion that
16
20
13:22:26
13:23:24
2115
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
referral to a criminal prosecution, could be impeded.

THE COURT:
Well, we'll have to just handle that as we
go.
I'm not going to assume, if I hold it under seal, that any
of you are going to violate that seal.

MR. SEGURA:
Your Honor, could I just mention one
thing on the allegations?
I'm talking about have been provided to all counsel.
allegations part of it is that those allegations were revealed
to Mackiewicz, so the allegations that I intend to talk about,
10
I'm sorry.
All of the things that

The
he has already become aware of.

THE COURT:
11
Okay.
13:23:51
Well, it seems to me that the
12
awareness of the investigation does not have to go under seal.
13
It strikes me that 2016 and 2842 probably do need to go under
14
seal; propriety of communications, if they're going to discuss
15
the allegations, probably need to be seal.
MR. SEGURA:
17
THE COURT:
18
Okay, under seal.
DS
What's that?
MR. SEGURA:
the investigation.
IEN
22
That is the same as the Johnson memo.
Seagraves' attempts to follow up the investigation.
19
21
13:24:23
Those were her attempts -- she took over
What I intend to question her on is her
23
attempts to investigate certain allegations through Sheriff
24
Arpaio.
FR
25
13:24:11
Closure of the investigation?
16
20
13:23:37
THE COURT:
All right.
So that probably needs to be
13:24:33
2116
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
under seal.
So all of this is going to be under seal except
for the awareness of the investigation itself, it looks like.

Does anybody object to that?
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
We take no position.
All right.
13:24:46
(Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT:
I'm just going to inform the audience that
during the course of this examination, towards its end there
may be matters that need to be taken under seal, that the Court
10
may rule need to be taken under seal for adequate reasons.
At
11
that time, for as long as that investigation takes, the Court
12
will clear the courtroom.
All right?
Ms. Seagraves, if you'll come forward.
13
14
THE COURT:
15
Mr. Segura.
16
BY MR. SEGURA:
17
Q.
18
discussing a missing $260, is that correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And there was an investigation as to those $260, correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And I believe I asked you earlier whether you supervised
13:25:54
IEN
DS
Lieutenant Seagraves, before we took a break we were
23
Sergeant Tennyson on this investigation?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And did you supervise him on this investigation?
FR
13:25:10
13:26:02
13:26:14
2117
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't believe I supervised him for that investigation,
but I did sign off on a memo that he wrote.
Q.
have in front of you.
regarding Internal Affairs investigation 15-21?
And let me point you to Exhibit 2010, which I believe you

Is this the report that was produced
This is Exhibit 2010, yes.
6
7
A.
May I have a moment?
Q.
Sure.
THE WITNESS:
10
May I expound on my answer?
11
BY MR. SEGURA:
12
Q.
Yes.
13
A.
It does include that investigation, as well as other work
14
product relating to another investigation, and a summary that
15
was not done by me.
16
Q.
17
investigation"?
18
A.
19
is an investigation in reference to Officer Rafael Montoya,
20
which was conducted by someone else other than Dave Tennyson.
21
Q.
22
the missing 260?
Okay.
13:27:21
13:27:33
What are you referring to when you say "another
DS
Well, at the end of 210 on Bates stamp and MELC288540, this
IEN
Okay.
13:27:58
But this all has to do with the same allegations of
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
Just different principals?
25
A.
Yes, and different authors of each section.
FR
13:26:39
13:28:09
2118
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
related to the investigation of 15-21 as to both Deputy Cosme
and Montoya, is that correct?
A.
this I have not seen because it was done by someone else.
Q.
15-21?
A.
Yes.
But if I could also clarify another point.
Certainly.
I do, sir.
Some of
Thank you.
Your Honor, I would move for the

MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
13:28:39
I don't know if you want to parse up the
13
exhibits, but the part she's seen she can testify to.
14
sure that she knows anything about the part she hasn't seen.
15
For her to -- for me to admit the exhibit, you're going to have
16
to establish that she knows whether or not it's part of 15-21.

MR. SEGURA:
17
18
Your Honor.
19
BY MR. SEGURA:
20
Q.
23
And I've -- I've done that in advance,
THE WITNESS:
MR. SEGURA:
I'm sorry.
13:29:10
I'm not finding it here.
This was one of the exhibits that we
24
provided shortly before.
25
different folder.
FR
13:28:57
IEN
22
I'm not
So if I could turn you to Exhibit 2887.
DS
21
13:28:31
But do you understand this to be the report for
MR. SEGURA:
9
10
But this is the report compiling the information
I don't know if they're in a

13:30:33
THE CLERK:
What is the exhibit number?
MR. SEGURA:
2
3
4
2887.
THE CLERK:
2887?
MR. SEGURA:
Yes.
THE CLERK:
THE CLERK:
7
8
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
I can --
(Handing).
THE WITNESS:
2119
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
13:30:56
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Is this the memorandum you were just referencing that
10
Sergeant Tennyson submitted to you regarding his investigation
11
of Deputy Cosme on 15-21?
12
A.
Yes.
MR. SEGURA:
13
I move for the admission of Exhibit 2887.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
MR. WALKER:
15
MR. COMO:
16
THE COURT:
17
No objection.
13:31:27
No objection.
2887 is admitted.
18
19
BY MR. SEGURA:
20
Q.
21
that was his memorandum to you to close out the investigation,
22
is that correct?
IEN
DS
And this memorandum from you to -- from Tennyson to you,
23
A.
24
saying I did or I didn't; I just don't have any memory of it.
25
But I do remember him giving this to me, which I forwarded to
FR
13:31:10
I don't remember getting the whole case file.
13:31:36
I'm not
13:31:56
2120
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
my chain of command.
Q.
is that your handwriting?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
You said you reviewed it, correct?
A.
Reviewed the memo, yes.
Q.
Okay.
not sufficient evidence to continue the criminal investigation
here, is that correct?
Okay.
And on the third page of this exhibit at the bottom,
And Sergeant Tennyson was suggesting that there was
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you agreed with that determination, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
I'd just like to ask you a few questions about -- about the
14
investigation itself.
13:32:21
My understanding is that it was determined that the
15
16
money was likely seized from the driver of the vehicle that was
17
stopped, is that correct?
18
A.
13:32:33
Are --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
Foundation.
20
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
22
belonged to the driver of the vehicle that was stopped?
DS
13:32:46
IEN
Is it your understanding that the money in question was --
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
toward the bottom where it says:
FR
13:32:07
And if you turn to page 1 of the exhibit, you see

"Should be noted the alleged
13:33:09
2121
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
owner of the cash, based on the report, could not be located"?

Do you see that?
2
3
A.
I see it on screen.
Is it the same --
Q.
It's on the first page of the exhibit towards the bottom,
third -- fourth paragraph from the top -- from the bottom.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
made to locate the driver of the vehicle, correct?
A.
Could you repeat your question?
10
Q.
Sure.
11
to locate the alleged owner of the cash?
12
A.
I do remember there was an effort being made, yes.
13
Q.
Do you recall specifically what was done to attempt to
14
locate?
15
A.
16
background information in reference to whatever criminal
17
history would provide in order for a recent address.
18
think there was some other things, but I -- those are the
19
things that come to my mind as I sit here.
20
Q.
21
with respect to locating this individual?
22
A.
And you aren't aware of what specific efforts were
You aren't aware of what specific efforts were made
I believe contact was made with ICE.
I think there was
And do you know if ICE was contacted specifically
13:34:18
13:34:44
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
And what were the results of that?
24
A.
I don't believe there was a positive outcome to that.
25
Q.
Can you turn to page 172 of your deposition of September
FR
13:34:05
I do
DS
Okay.
13:33:34
13:34:59
2122
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
3rd, 2015?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. SEGURA:
172.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
4
5
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
What's the number?
Thank you.
13:35:30
So on line 12 of that page I asked --
On line 12 of that page do you see where I asked:
"Do
you know what efforts were made to locate the alleged owner of
the cash?"
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you said:
12
entire report to know.
13
that without reviewing the entire report"?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And was that an accurate statement at the time you made it
16
during your deposition?
17
MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
13:35:45
"As I sit here, I would have to read the
I don't -- I don't have an answer for
Objection, Your Honor, improper
impeachment.
THE COURT:
19
I'll allow it.
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
Do you now recall something differently?
22
A.
Well, I wasn't able to review the report.
IEN
DS
20
13:36:05
I don't recall
23
you giving me this entire document --
24
Q.
Okay.
25
A.
-- to look at when I did my deposition with you.
FR
13:35:55
13:36:13
2123
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Can you point to where in this report there are efforts
described to contact ICE regarding locating this individual?

THE WITNESS:
I'm continuing to look through it, but
I -- from looking at this prior to, when I identified that some
of it didn't belong to me, I thought I read something from
Officer Sergeant Mejia, who works in the administrative portion
of PSB, and I think she summed it up, but I'm trying to find
that area.
She gave a summary.
10
BY MR. SEGURA:
11
Q.
12
past this without you having to review every page.
13:39:07
Let me ask you another question so that maybe we can get
On the second page of your -- of the Exhibit 2887, the
13
14
memorandum from Sergeant Tennyson to you --
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
-- there is a summary of interviews done by Sergeant
17
18
A.
I'm sorry, sir.
19
Q.
On page 2 of the memo from Tennyson to you.
20
A.
Okay.
21
Q.
There's -- he provides a summary of interviews that he's
22
done with Montoya and Navarrette, is that correct, and his
13:39:26
IEN
DS
Where did you say?
23
findings?
24
A.
You talking about third paragraph from the bottom?
25
Q.
Generally on the second page, does he provide a summary of
FR
13:38:41
13:39:43
13:40:00
2124
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
what Officer Montoya and Navarrette have told him about the
practice of storing money and inventorying property?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Montoya and Navarrette, they both state that sometimes
things were overwhelming, sometimes things weren't always
placed where they were supposed to according to office policy,
is that correct?
A.
According to what Dave Tennyson wrote, yes.
Q.
Okay.
And below there's a summary of a conversation that
10
Sergeant Tennyson had with an Officer Taylor.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
Officer Taylor was a detention officer assigned to
14
Enforcement Support during the time frame while these folks
15
were working, specifically Navarrette and Montoya, who assisted
16
booking and would bring out the MCSO booking van to help out
17
with booking procedures.
18
Q.
19
that sometimes when ICE is involved in the arrest, the money
20
can go from someone who is arrested to someone who's not being
21
arrested, but transferred to ICE, is that correct?
22
A.
Do you see that?
13:40:52
And he set forth an explanation to Sergeant Tennyson
13:41:10
IEN
That's what he documented here, yes.
23
Q.
24
there were efforts made to identify whether -- to work with ICE
25
to identify the -- the owner of the cash?
FR
13:40:35
And who is Officer Taylor?
DS
Okay.
13:40:21
Okay.
Is that what you were referring to when you say that
13:41:28
2125
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Generally, my mem- -- from looking at this in reference to
what was summarized was that ICE was contacted to find out if
the procedure that was suggested by Taylor could have possibly
occurred, whereas if someone was stopped, that the money could
be turned over to a family member or someone who was traveling
who would not be detained.
Q.
of the vehicle was the one who was alleged to be engaging in
smuggling, he's the human smuggler, is that correct?
That was my understanding.
And you're aware that the -- you're aware that the driver
10
A.
That's what I remember, yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
act, correct, the fact that he engaged in human smuggling for
13
profit?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
of that crime, correct?
17
A.
It could be, yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
potential prosecution, correct?
20
A.
21
what I have been told, that for reasons if there were a mother
22
or a child with the person who was committing the crime, that
And so the cash that he had on him could be evidence
13:42:38
So that would have been logged as -- as evidence for
DS
Again, just from my overall knowledge of this case and from
IEN
13:42:26
And an alleged -- that would have been a criminal
23
in some cases that they would give the money to the family
24
members in order to not leave them stranded.
25
Q.
FR
13:41:51
But that wouldn't have happened in this case, since the
13:42:57
13:43:22
2126
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
money was from the alleged smuggler, correct?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Sustained.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
had could constitute evidence of human smuggling, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
criminal investigation, correct?
You said earlier that that money that the driver may have
That evidence would have to be logged for the
10
A.
Generally speaking, yes.
11
Q.
And generally speaking, money wouldn't be handed over,
12
wouldn't be allowed to be given from someone suspected of -- of
13
human smuggling to someone that they were smuggling, correct?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
THE COURT:
15
BY MR. SEGURA:
18
Q.
19
that -- so you're saying that in this situation it's possible
20
that the driver, alleged to be a human smuggler, would be
21
allowed to give the money he was carrying to someone else who
22
he was smuggling?
IEN
DS
So you can't say whether in this situation it's possible
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
Your Honor.
25
BY MR. SEGURA:
FR
13:44:16
I don't know.
17
23
13:43:59
If you know.
THE WITNESS:
16
13:43:42
13:44:33
Objection, foundation, speculation,
13:44:46
Q.
2127
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
If you know.
THE COURT:
You can answer if you know.
THE WITNESS:
I don't know.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
and they're allowed to give it to ICE, that involves family
members, correct?
A.
reported to me.
Usually, when you said when money goes from -- from someone
I don't personally know; I'm just telling you what was
10
Q.
11
members in this vehicle, do you?
12
A.
I don't know that.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
which is not yet into evidence.
15
conducted by Sergeant Tennyson of Deputy Cosme?
16
A.
17
falls into his investigation --
18
Q.
Have you reviewed this interview?
19
A.
I may have; I don't know.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
February of 2015 in Exhibit 2889 -- I mean 2887, that was sent
22
to you in February of 2015, is that correct?
And you don't know whether the driver had any family
13:45:16
I'd like to turn your attention to Exhibit 2890,

And is this an interview
13:45:56
Yes, but I don't know if this is one of many or how this
IEN
DS
Your -- the memorandum from Tennyson to you in
23
A.
In reference the missing money?
24
Q.
Yes.
25
A.
This date is February 26th.
FR
13:45:00
13:46:50
13:47:23
2128
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Sergeant Tennyson around 2015.
recollection as to whether you were supervising Sergeant
Tennyson during this investigation?
A.
that time that I was also doing in reference to the Court, and
time restraints to get summaries of interviews done.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Captain Bailey.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
Exhibit 2890 to -- it's Bates stamp -- the last three numbers
12
of the Bates at the bottom are 264.
13
A.
Okay.
14
Q.
Do you see at the bottom where Sergeant Cosme asks --
15
Sergeant Tennyson asks Cosme, it starts on line 757, when you
16
walked into the bullpen --
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
24
MR. SEGURA:
FR
13:48:39
He's reading
And Your Honor, I would just like to get
a reaction to this, not for the -- not to admit it.
23
25
Objection, Your Honor.
13:47:53
from a document not in evidence.
IEN
22
I'd like to turn your attention on
DS
21
13:47:36
If you were not supervising him, who -- who was?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
20
Does this refresh your
No, it doesn't, because there were other things going on at
17
18
And earlier you said that you started supervising
BY MR. SEGURA:
13:48:47
Well, you can have her read it.

Have her read it?
Yeah.
Okay.
13:48:54
2129
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Sergeant Tennyson, would you read from line 757 to the end
of the page and continuing to the next line on the next page?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And there --
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
MR. SEGURA:
Can she read it out loud, Your Honor?
For what purpose?
To get her reaction as to, based on her
experience, whether this is an appropriate line of questioning
for an investigator to have in a criminal investigation.

THE COURT:
10
I promise you I will read it myself, so it
11
doesn't need to be read out loud.
12
question.
MR. SEGURA:
13
13:49:43
You can still ask the
14
BY MR. SEGURA:
15
Q.
16
he has observed when he's walked into a bullpen in the
17
Enforcement Support unit, is that correct?
18
A.
That's what it says, yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
everywhere, that it was sort of, I would say chaotic, would you
21
agree?
22
A.
So here Sergeant Tennyson is asking Cosme what he -- what
13:49:52
DS
And Sergeant Tennyson described that there was stuff
13:50:17
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
this were a perfect world, you would have had enough resources
25
to handle things, is that right?
FR
13:49:27
Okay.
And then Sergeant Tennyson also says, you know, if
13:50:35
MR. POPOLIZIO:
1
2
2130
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
We're reading
from the document.
THE COURT:
I'll allow that question.
THE WITNESS:
Yes.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
investigator to -- to be asking to the subject of a criminal
investigation?
13:50:44
Is that an appropriate line of questioning for an
MR. POPOLIZIO:
9
10
BY MR. SEGURA:
11
Q.
13:50:57
Based on your experience?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
THE COURT:
13
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
14
Same objection.
Well, this document does go on.
There's
15
over -- over 3100 lines.
16
portion there, I don't know what Tennyson's mindset was, what
17
his thought was in reference to questions that had been
18
answered prior to or questions that were answered after.
13:51:05
So to pick that portion and single it out, I can't
19
really say.
21
BY MR. SEGURA:
22
Q.
13:51:28
DS
20
IEN
Would you agree that those were leading questions?
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
THE COURT:
25
THE WITNESS:
FR
So for me to pick out just that brief
Overruled.
Not necessarily.
13:51:37
2131
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
excuse?
Does it appear that Sergeant Tennyson is giving Cosme an
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
It could be considered a technique to
minimize the situation so a person might feel more comfortable
being more forthcoming with you, if you kind of feel like they
understand the situation.
10
BY MR. SEGURA:
11
Q.
12
be an appropriate line of questioning?
13
A.
I don't think it's inappropriate, no.
14
Q.
Okay.
13:52:13
And so you think that that's an appropriate -- that could
If you could turn to the page ending in 285.
So can you read to yourself, starting on line 1692
15
until 1708.
17
A.
Okay.
18
Q.
So Sergeant Tennyson is tell -- is telling Cosme how long
19
they've known each other, that they've known each other for 15
20
years, is that right?
21
A.
It's what is written, yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
IEN
DS
16
13:52:39
13:53:28
And that he couldn't imagine Cosme giving $260 to
23
anyone he didn't know?
24
A.
Didn't trust?
25
Q.
Didn't trust.
FR
13:51:50
13:53:42
2132
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yeah.
That's what it says.
Q.
And you think that's an appropriate line of questioning for
a criminal investigator to engage in?

THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
Again, you know, without reading this
whole thing, I don't know what was said.
again, in the middle of an interview, so...
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
Okay.
I mean, it's just,
Did you ever address anything that Sergeant
10
Tennyson -- this -- did you ever address anything related to
11
this interview with Sergeant Tennyson?
12
A.
In reference to?
13
Q.
This specific interview.
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
You never took issue with these interviews, correct?
16
this interview, correct?
17
A.
No.
18
Q.
Did you -- did you handle the administrative investigation
19
on this pocketing allegation?
20
A.
21
items related to things that were taken that Cisco Perez
22
alleged.
DS
IEN
23
Q.
24
investigation, you worked on it?
25
A.
FR
With
I did many interviews in reference to the 260 and other
Okay.
Yes.
13:53:53
13:54:07
13:54:19
13:54:40
But so you were -- you were part of this
13:54:56
Q.
Okay.
THE COURT:
2
3
2133
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Can I interrupt for a minute?
When you
say many interviews in reference to the 260 -THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
The $260.
Thank you.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
you review the -- if there has been a criminal investigation
that's -- do you review any of the documents relating to that
And when you work on an -- on an administrative case, do
10
criminal investigation?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Because it would be helpful for your administrative
13
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And as part of an administrative investigation on the 260,
16
did you review this interview?
17
A.
MR. SEGURA:
21
Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
13:55:44
2890 is admitted.
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
24
Q.
25
admitted into evidence.
FR
Your Honor, I would now move for
IEN
22
13:55:27
the admission of Exhibit 2890.
DS
20
13:55:22
I'm sure that I did, yes.
18
19
13:55:05
Would you look at Exhibit 2891 for me, which is not

13:56:10
Can you turn to the back of that document.
Before I start, is this the -- is this a written
2
3
reprimand that was issued against Deputy Cosme in the
administrative investigation?
A.
It appears so, yes.
Q.
Okay.
MR. SEGURA:
7
8
13:56:39
Exhibit 2891.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
10
11
2134
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Will you lay some more foundation, please?

MR. SEGURA:
12
Sure.
13
BY MR. SEGURA:
14
Q.
15
Cosme as a result of the administrative investigation of 15-21?
16
A.
That's what it says, yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Can you turn to the second page of the document and read
20
the top paragraph.
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Do you understand what that paragraph means?
This was the written reprimand that was issued to Deputy
DS
IEN
13:57:08
And have you seen this before?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
What does it mean?
25
A.
Well, progressive discipline is involved, and if -- if it's
FR
13:56:54
13:57:19
13:57:47
2135
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
a sustained allegation, then it's going to be accordingly, and
that this is an ongoing investigation relating to the Melendres
litigation, and that he's listed as a principal.
Q.
ongoing investigations related to the Melendres litigation?
Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
6
7
So it says that -- at the top it says that there are
He's reading
from a document not in evidence.

THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
I'm sorry, could you repeat your
10
question?
11
BY MR. SEGURA:
12
Q.
13
investigations related to the Melendres litigation.
Yes.
13:58:24
The first line says that there are ongoing
Do you see that?
14
A.
Yes, sir, I do.
16
Q.
That's this litigation, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And the next line indicates that if you, the principal,
19
have received policy violations on matters related to the
20
Melendres litigation, that those would all be considered as one
21
offense, even if they're separate instances, is that correct?
22
A.
DS
15
13:58:31
13:58:45
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
came about?
25
A.
FR
13:58:12
And do you know where that -- how this -- this paragraph
No.
13:59:16
2136
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
you said several investigations involving identifications that
had been found, is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Well, his role was different than mine, but he was there.
Q.
Sure.
investigations into identifications that had been found?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
mishandling of identifications, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
You and Captain Bailey were part of that -- were principals
14
in that investigation, correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And so were Lieutenant Jakowinicz and Sergeant Powe or
17
"Pow"?
18
A.
Powe.
19
Q.
Powe?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Yes.
And so was Captain Bailey, is that right?
And part of his role was overseeing these
And you were -- you were investigated regarding the
13:59:52
14:00:07
DS
23
14:00:13
Do you have it there?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
And this is the investigation in which you were a principal
FR
13:59:33
Would you turn to Exhibit 2011.
IEN
22
So while you were at PSB, you were involved in I believe
14:01:24
2137
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
regarding the mishandling of IDs, correct?
A.
It appears to be, yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
No.
Q.
And this is the same investigation in which Captain Bailey
was a principal, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
checked out IDs from Property and Evidence, is that correct?
Have you seen this document before?
And you are the ones who -- you were the one who
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
that right?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
and Sergeant Powe for an investigation they were doing at a
16
nightclub, is that right?
17
A.
Correct.
18
Q.
And this -- this investigation was originally supposed to
19
be conducted by an outside investigator, is that right?
14:01:47
And you were directed to do so by Captain Bailey, is
And those IDs were given to Lieutenant Jakowinicz
MR. POPOLIZIO:
DS
20
21
BY MR. SEGURA:
22
Q.
IEN
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
FR
14:01:59
14:02:16
If you know.
23
25
14:01:31
BY MR. SEGURA:
If you know, you may answer.

That's what I was told, yes.
14:02:24
Q.
Okay.
A.
That is my understanding, yes.
Q.
Okay.
conduct the investigation?
And do you know why he was supposed to originally
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
You can answer yes or no.

No.
BY MR. SEGURA:
10
Q.
11
Sergeant Bailey working at the Professional Standards Bureau?
Is it because there was potentially a conflict with you and
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. SEGURA:
15
14:02:46
I'll allow you to answer if you know.
THE WITNESS:
14
I don't know.
Okay.
16
BY MR. SEGURA:
17
Q.
18
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And do you know why?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Okay.
14:02:58
IEN
DS
You're aware that Mr. Vogel did not conduct the
14:03:05
The investigation was conducted by Lieutenant Cory
23
Morrison, is that correct?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
14:02:39
I'm asking if she knows why.
THE WITNESS:
8
9
Is that -- was that Don Vogel?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
2138
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
And he had been in Internal Affairs before you,
14:03:15
2139
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
correct?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Captain Bailey out -- outranked him; he was a superior
officer, is that correct?
A.
Captain Bailey outranks a lieutenant, yes.
Q.
Okay.
discipline, correct?
And he was a lieutenant, is that correct?
As a result of that investigation you received minor
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
It was in the form of coaching, is that right?
12
A.
I believe so.
13
hundred percent sure.
14
Q.
And so did Captain Bailey --
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
-- is that correct?
14:03:44
It could be written, I'm not a
14:03:58
And do you believe it was appropriate for
17
Captain Bailey to oversee other investigations as to
19
identifications that had been found when he had been
20
investigated and found out violated policies regarding
21
mishandling of IDs?
DS
18
MR. POPOLIZIO:
IEN
22
23
THE COURT:
24
THE WITNESS:
FR
25
14:03:23
14:04:15
I'll allow it.

Your question was do I think it was
inappropriate for Captain Bailey to oversee other
14:04:33
2140
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigations?
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
Yes, regarding IDs that had been mishandled.
A.
I see this situation in reference to taking IDs for a
covert operation different than what the overall investigations
that were conducted in reference to IDs not being properly
secured.
an undercover operation.
Internal Affairs.
These were IDs that were secured that were taken for
This was prior to going to
I see them as two different things.
10
Q.
They both involved mishandling of evidence, correct?
11
A.
I disagree.
12
Q.
And why do you disagree?
13
A.
Because I didn't mishandle evidence.
14
was already set for destruction for the purpose of an
15
undercover operation, which had already been secured into
16
Property and Evidence.
17
Q.
18
to Mr. Armendariz or within HSU, those were mishandled in a
19
different way?
20
A.
21
identification cards that weren't put into Property and
22
Evidence, I consider that mishandled.
14:05:08
I took evidence that
14:05:24
And you believe that the IDs that were found with respect
IEN
DS
I didn't say mine were mishandled, but if you have
23
Q.
24
those were not returned to property for over a year, is that
25
correct?
FR
14:04:48
Okay.
14:05:45
The identifications that you took out of property,
14:06:02
2141
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Okay.
property in evidence, is that correct?
A.
else's custody.
ever used.
forgotten.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Do you not agree with the disciplinary findings in this
11
case as to you?
12
A.
13
have to live with that.
14
Q.
And do you agree with that decision?
15
A.
I don't know how to answer that.
16
the beginning of this whole process, and I was responsible.
17
took the IDs out, so at some point I'm going to have to take
18
responsibility for that.
19
Q.
Did you ever challenge this decision --
20
A.
I did not.
21
Q.
-- appeal it?
22
A.
No.
And you would agree that that's a mishandling of
I didn't have those in my custody; they were in someone

They were not ever released.
They were not
And they were -- had for -- they had been
But you had checked them out, correct?
IEN
DS
It was a decision that was -- that was made.
14:06:33
And I'm -- I
It's just -- it was in
14:06:49
14:07:04
No?
23
Q.
24
investigators who had not been found to also have mishandled
25
evidence to have investigated other identifications that had
FR
14:06:20
Do you think it would have been better for -- for
14:07:14
2142
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
been possibly mishandled?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
mischaracterizing testimony.
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
He's
Other investigators such as myself?
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
policy violations with respect to the handling of
identifications.
14:07:27
Investigators who had not been found to have committed
10
A.
I don't know of any others that had, with the exception of
11
myself and Captain Bailey, if that's what you're referring to.
12
Q.
13
or Captain Bailey to have engaged or participated in
14
investigations relating to other identifications that have been
15
potentially mishandled?
16
A.
Would it have been better for someone other than yourself
14:07:56
I don't --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
THE COURT:
18
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
19
I don't necessarily agree with you.
think that I'm capable of investigating, regardless of what
21
happened in my situation.
22
things.
IEN
DS
20
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
24
Q.
25
Montgomery?
FR
14:07:38
Okay.
14:08:10
I see it as two totally different
Are you aware of an investigation involving a Dennis

14:08:25
2143
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
And who is he?
A.
He -- how do I know him?
just know of him.
Q.
What do you know of him?
A.
Currently or previously?
Q.
Previously.
A.
Okay.
him in reference to defrauding the government, someone who has
I don't know him, I just -- I
14:08:39
Before --
He was someone who has many articles written about
10
questionable character as far as his credibility.
11
Q.
And what do you know about him now that's different?
12
A.
Nothing.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
investigation helping the MCSO, is that correct?
15
A.
That's what I was told.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
investigation was to obtain information from Dennis Montgomery
18
regarding Judge Snow?
21
THE COURT:
Do you want to lay some foundation,
MR. SEGURA:
Sure.
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
24
Q.
25
regarding the investigation involving Dennis Montgomery?
FR
14:09:35
please.
IEN
22
14:09:21
And your understanding is that the purpose of that
DS
20
And your understanding, he was involved in an
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
14:09:01
How did you obtain -- where did you obtain information

14:09:47
2144
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
While I was working in special investigations.
Q.
And did you obtain that information from discussions with
Captain Bailey?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
understanding what the purpose of the investigation was?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
obtain information regarding Judge Snow?
And through those discussions, did you come to an
And was one of the purposes of that investigation to
10
A.
Not specifically.
11
Q.
Generally?
14:10:19
MR. POPOLIZIO:
12
THE COURT:
13
Objection, foundation, hearsay.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
14
The way you phrased it, it's to single
15
out Judge Snow, and that's not the -- there was more to it than
16
just that.
17
BY MR. SEGURA:
18
Q.
Okay.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
It involved potential issues with the Sheriff's Office
21
being wiretapped, is that right?
22
A.
14:10:40
DS
It involved others, is that right?
14:10:50
IEN
What I was told, yes.
23
Q.
Okay.
24
A.
25
Q.
And in addition to that, there was also part of the
FR
14:10:00
And hacking into legal offices, right?
14:11:08
2145
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
investigation involving obtaining information regarding Judge
Snow?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
In relationship to other officials, yes.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
officials"?
A.
Specifically, Eric Holder.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
about this investigation involving Dennis Montgomery, you went
12
back to your computer and googled Dennis Montgomery, right?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And what did you find as a result of your Internet search?
15
A.
Several articles and a Wikipedia page and some other
16
publications in reference to him.
17
Q.
And what was your reaction of -- based on what you found?
18
A.
My reaction?
19
Q.
And you obtained this -- you had -- you came to this
20
understanding, based on what you found, just through this
21
Internet search, is that correct?
22
A.
And what do you mean by "in relationship to other
DS
And after -- when Captain Bailey first told you
IEN
Q.
Okay.
24
common sense?
25
A.
Yes.
14:11:33
14:12:02
Just that he wasn't credible.
Initially, yes.
23
FR
14:11:22
14:12:32
Yes.
And that was just based on, would you say, your
14:12:43
2146
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Would you say it was pretty easy to figure out that
something was up with Mr. Montgomery?
A.
on him, his credibility was an issue.
Q.
about what you had found, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
found and you gave it to him, correct?
Again, not knowing him personally, but googling information
Okay.
And after you googled him you told Captain Bailey
And yet you actually printed out some of what you
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And did Captain Bailey look at that information?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And what did he do after he looked at the information?
14
A.
He made a phone call.
15
Q.
He called Chief Deputy Sheridan, is that right?
16
A.
Initially, I didn't know who he called.
17
Q.
And are you now aware that he called Chief Deputy Sheridan?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And you were present for that call?
20
A.
Part of it, yes.
21
Q.
Okay.
22
you leave the room before that call ended?
IEN
DS
14:13:12
14:13:24
14:13:36
Did that call end before you -- did that call -- did
23
A.
24
I just remember being there during a brief portion of the
25
beginning, and then I left, and I don't know why.
FR
14:12:58
I don't remember staying during the duration of the call.
14:13:52
Q.
had googled Mr. Montgomery, correct?
Okay.
And Captain Bailey asked Chief Deputy Sheridan if he
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
4
5
2147
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
it.
Objection, hearsay.
Being offered for the truth?
Sounds like
14:14:11
MR. SEGURA:
My understanding is that these are
statements by employees of the party within their capacity as
employees of MCSO.
THE COURT:
9
10
So you're saying statement of a party
opponent?
14:14:22
MR. SEGURA:
11
THE COURT:
12
I am, Your Honor.
One moment.
13
THE COURT:
14
Overruled.
15
BY MR. SEGURA:
16
Q.
17
Mr. Montgomery, is that correct?
18
A.
19
information on the Internet; something to that effect.
20
Q.
21
effect of this could be the golden goose that laid the golden
22
egg, but this guy is so tainted that no jury would believe him,
So he asked Chief Deputy Sheridan if he had googled
I don't know if it was googled or if he had seen the
He told Chief Deputy Sheridan something to the
IEN
DS
Okay.
23
he has no credibility, is that right?
24
A.
That was the gist of what Captain Bailey was saying, yes.
25
Q.
He said even if he were to wrap it all up in a bow it would
FR
14:14:45
14:15:01
14:15:16
2148
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
be worthless, is that right?
A.
not he was saying that to Chief Sheridan or if he was saying
that directly to me.
Q.
if this were the golden goose?
A.
to him or if he said that directly to me.
Q.
I don't remember if I testified in my deposition whether or
Okay.
But he told Chief Deputy Sheridan about the -- even
That comment as well, I'm not sure if that was what he said
Okay.
Can you turn to page 208 of your deposition
10
transcript that we were just looking at previously.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
You see on page 208, starting at line 13:
phone, Captain Bailey?"

You said:
15
"Yes."
"He said, this could be the golden goose that laid the
17
18
golden egg, but this guy is so tainted that no jury would
19
believe him.
He has no credibility.
DS
"Something to the effect of even if he were to wrap it
up in a big bow, it still would be worthless information.
22
Something to the -- the present scenario and the golden goose
IEN
21
23
FR
14:16:37
were what he said exactly."
24
25
14:16:26
"What else did he say?
16
20
14:15:55
"And then did he say anything else while he was on the
13
14
14:15:29
A.
Do you see that?
Yes, I do.
14:16:49
2149
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And was that testimony accurate?
A.
Yes.
was directly to me, but I did testify to you, yes.
Q.
these concerns, is that correct?
A.
Are you referring to Captain Bailey and I one on one?
Q.
Yes.
A.
I'm sure that there have been discussions, yes.
Q.
And he -- you had concerns about the money that was spent
Okay.
But again, I don't remember as I sit here whether it
And you and Captain Bailey all separately discussed
10
on this -- that was being spent on this investigation?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
discussion with him?
14
A.
He shared those concerns with me that he --
15
Q.
Based on your discussions with Captain Bailey, is it your
16
understanding that he shared those concerns with you?
17
A.
18
had concern about the money --
19
Q.
Yes.
20
A.
-- is that your question?
21
Q.
You had to approve some of the payments relating to the
22
Montgomery investigation, is that correct?
14:17:17
And he shared those concerns, based on your
14:17:30
IEN
DS
If I understand your question that if Captain Bailey also
Yes, the answer's yes.
23
A.
Not relating to the disbursement of the funds, I did not.
24
Q.
And what do you mean by "the disbursement of the funds"?
25
A.
The money he received monthly, I didn't have anything to do
FR
14:17:06
14:17:43
14:17:59
2150
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
with that.
Q.
for MCSO employees, is that correct?
A.
On occasion, yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
On occasion, yes.
Q.
And what were those concerns?
A.
The overall -- the overall concern was that I'd be signing
something that I did not know what was actually going on as far
You had to approve expenses as to travel-related expenses
And you had concerns with doing that?
14:18:08
10
as investigation, signing my name on -- on something that I
11
wasn't a part of the investigation or knew about details.
12
was my concern as a supervisor.
13
Q.
14
in -- these expense approvals, correct?
15
A.
Again, for the same reason, you're correct.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
you eventually did sign off on, that those had been
18
pre-approved by someone above you, is that right?
19
A.
20
Q.
Okay.
23
24
FR
25
14:18:54
And you actually ensured that these -- the ones that
Could you turn to Exhibit 2012.
14:19:10
2012 is a memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to you in
which he was seeking approval for lodging, is that correct?
IEN
22
That
And you didn't want -- you didn't want to sign off on these
DS
21
14:18:35
A.
Correct.
MR. SEGURA:
Okay.
Your Honor, I'd move for the

14:19:53
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
3
4
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
And if you could turn to Exhibit 2013.
you requesting approval for lodging?
A.
Yes.
MR. SEGURA:
Exhibit 2013.
14:20:42
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
Objection, relevance, cumulative.
Overruled.
13
14
BY MR. SEGURA:
15
Q.
16
seems to say "approved"?
At the bottom of 2013 do you see some handwriting that
18
A.
I see two approvals, yes.
19
Q.
On the -- the handwriting on the right.
DS
Do you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q.
Is that Chief Deputy Sheridan's signature?
IEN
21
23
A.
Yes.
14:21:07
Appears to be, yes.
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. SEGURA:
FR
14:20:55
Do you see that?
17
20
14:20:11
Is that a similar memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to
10
2151
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
What exhibit is that on?

2013.
14:21:15
2152
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
handwriting that says "okay"?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Is that also Chief Sheridan's signature?
A.
Appears to be, yes.
Q.
There were several funding streams used to fund the
investigation that Mr. Montgomery was a part of, is that
correct?
And going back to Exhibit 2012, do you see at the bottom
MR. POPOLIZIO:
10
THE COURT:
11
14:21:35
14:21:52
Do you want to lay foundation?
Because
12
I'm going to sustain that objection.
13
BY MR. SEGURA:
14
Q.
15
to the Montgomery investigation, is that correct?
16
we had just seen in Exhibit 2012 and 2013, for example.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
you were at the -- you were at the Special Investigation
20
Division at the time, was -- was to know which -- and you --
21
you are aware of which funding streams were used to in -- to
22
fund this investigation, correct?
You were -- you were involved in approving payments related
DS
IEN
14:22:00
And as part of your responsibilities at -- I believe
23
A.
At the time I was not aware.
24
Q.
Are you aware now?
25
A.
Some things I am aware.
FR
The two that
14:22:19
Or you are aware?
14:22:48
2153
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And how did you become aware of which funding
streams were used to fund the investigation with
Mr. Montgomery?
A.
Through documents I received through finance.
Q.
Okay.
used to fund this investigation, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Another was the general fund?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
investigation?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
What are vendor payouts?
18
A.
Generally speaking?
19
Q.
Yes.
20
A.
It's -- could be a vendor that -- it could be a sole source
21
vendor, or it could be a vendor that we need to purchase an
22
item or product through or service through.
And so there were several different funding streams
How about vendor payouts?
IEN
14:23:12
Was that used to pay this
And that was to fund Mr. Zullo, is that correct?
14:23:22
14:23:39
And it has to be
23
documented as to why we need that, and forwarded to the chain
24
of command for approval, and eventually to finance for
25
disbursement, either through a purchase order or through a
FR
14:23:01
One of them was the RICO fund, is that right?
DS
Okay.
14:24:02
billing.
Q.
as a vendor?
Did you have any concerns with Mr. Zullo being paid as a --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
5
6
Objection, foundation, relevance.
I'm going to overrule the relevance
I don't think you've laid foundation sufficient to ask
that question with respect to Mr. Zullo.
BY MR. SEGURA:
10
Q.
11
using the vendor payout fund, is that correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did you have any concerns with paying -- with having
14
Mr. Zullo compensated as a vendor?
15
A.
16
to PSB.
17
Q.
18
the fact that he was paid as a vendor?
19
A.
20
just was a discovery that I had.
21
Q.
You said previously that Mr. Zullo was paid as a vendor
I was not aware that he was paid as a vendor until I went
Okay.
14:24:32
14:24:47
And then at some point did you become concerned with
DS
I don't really know how to answer that concern.
I mean, it
14:25:05
Was it odd that he was paid as a vendor?
IEN
MR. POPOLIZIO:
23
THE COURT:
24
BY MR. SEGURA:
25
Q.
FR
14:24:20
objection.
22
2154
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sustained.
The sheriff made a personal donation of $10,000 to fund the
14:25:18
Montgomery investigation, is that correct?
A.
I only know what I was told.
Q.
And what were you told?
A.
That that had occurred.
Q.
And who were you told that by?
A.
Captain Bailey.
Q.
And that was money specifically so that -- and
Captain Bailey told you that that was money specifically so
that Mr. Zullo could travel to Seattle, is that correct?
10
A.
That's what I was told.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
informant, correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
14:26:02
Sustained.
17
BY MR. SEGURA:
18
Q.
19
were paid with respect to their participation in
20
investigations?
21
A.
Non-employees?
22
Q.
Sure.
IEN
DS
When you were at SID, were you aware of how non-employees
14:26:44
If you are a -- if a non-MCSO employees is working
23
on an investigation, are you aware of how those non-employees
24
are paid?
25
A.
FR
14:25:45
And that -- that struck you as odd, right?
THE COURT:
16
14:25:30
Mr. Montgomery was classified as a confidential
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
2155
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Are you talking like a confidential informant?
14:27:03
2156
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Generally when you were at the Special Investigations
Division.
A.
know about how a non-employee would be compensated.
Q.
which a non-employee was compensated who was not a confidential
informant?
A.
my response.
I would only know about a confidential informant.
Okay.
Have you ever been involved in an investigation in
14:27:18
Other than a vendor that provided a service, that would be
10
Q.
11
part of the Posse, is that correct?
12
A.
That's what I'm told.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
have been paid as -- as vendors?
15
A.
I have no knowledge of that.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
vendor payouts?
18
A.
I don't know how to answer that.
19
Q.
Sure.
20
expenses?
21
A.
22
their funding, if that's what you're asking me.
Are you aware of any other -- Mr. Zullo is a -- is
14:27:33
Are you aware of any other members of the Posse that
14:27:49
Do you know if travel expenses are ever paid as
Could you elaborate?
The vendor payout fund, is that ever used for travel
DS
Okay.
14:28:15
IEN
Well, I don't -- I wouldn't know how that person would use
23
Q.
24
past, correct?
25
A.
FR
I don't
Okay.
So you worked with confidential informants in the
Not me personally, no.
14:28:30
Q.
Okay.
under which someone can be classified as a confidential
informant in MCSO?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
reasons why someone would be classified as a confidential
informant, did it strike you as odd that Mr. Montgomery was
classified as a confidential informant?
And are you aware of how -- of the circumstances
And did it -- based on what you understand the
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
10
14:29:11
I don't know how to answer that, because
12
I don't know fully what the -- what the investigation was all
13
about to know that.
14
BY MR. SEGURA:
15
Q.
Okay.
Could you turn to page 225 of your deposition.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
MR. SEGURA:
17
MR. SEGURA:
19
Which one, Counsel?
Thank you.
The same one.
20
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
22
was a confidential informant?"
DS
IEN
You said:
24
I asked:
25
You said:
FR
14:29:47
You see on line 4 where I ask:
23
14:29:27
September 23rd.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
14:28:51
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
11
2157
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
"When did you learn that he
"Very early on in the investigation."

"Did that strike you as odd?"
"Yes."
14:29:58
I asked:
You said:
2158
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
"Why?"
"Well, I thought it was odd for the
totality of the whole situation, the fact that he's got a
history of duping the government and taking money and being
sued, that we would list him as a confidential -- confidential
informant, to pay him a large sum of cash to someone who had
credibility issues.
I thought that was problematic."
Do you see that?
8
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And you testified truthfully during your deposition?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Are you aware of Sheriff Arpaio having given any direction
13
with regard to the funding of the Montgomery investigation?
14
A.
15
told to me from Steve Bailey.
16
Q.
And what was told to you by Steve Bailey?
17
A.
Steve Bailey told me that there was a concern because the
18
HIDTA funds were running low, and he told me that he was
19
ordered to come up with the $10,000.
20
Q.
21
in which he expressed his concerns about the funding, is that
22
right?
14:30:19
Other than what I told you in my deposition about what was
He said that he had conversations with the sheriff
IEN
DS
Okay.
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And that he had suggested to the sheriff not spending any
25
more money, in that money was running low, is that correct?
FR
14:30:09
14:30:50
14:31:09
14:31:22
2159
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
And did he tell you that the sheriff said that he didn't
care, that you just need to get the fucking money?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know if -- are you aware of any conversations that
Sergeant Anglin has had with the sheriff regarding the
Montgomery investigation?
A.
Only what he told me.
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
He told me --
THE COURT:
12
14:32:05
THE COURT:
14
Yes, Your Honor.
Sustained.
MR. SEGURA:
15
Objection, hearsay.
Being offered for the truth of the matter?
MR. SEGURA:
13
16
And what did he tell you?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
My understanding is it's a statement of
THE COURT:
Yeah, but you gotta establish that it was
18
under some sort of authorized communication.
19
that?
DS
MR. SEGURA:
21
BY MR. SEGURA:
22
Q.
Have you done
I will, Your Honor.
14:32:23
IEN
Was Sergeant Anglin working on the Montgomery
23
investigation?
24
A.
25
we had a conversation.
FR
14:32:12
a -- party opponent.
17
20
14:31:39
Yes, but I don't know if he was on or off at that time when

14:32:34
2160
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
But he did at some point work on the Montgomery
investigation, is that right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And at some point he was no longer working on the
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you're aware of conversations that he's had with
Sheriff Arpaio regarding the investigation, is that right?
A.
What he told me, yes.
10
Q.
Okay.
14:32:43
And what did he tell you?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
THE COURT:
12
Same objection, Your Honor.
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
13
He told me that he, at some point in the
investigation, felt that the information coming from Montgomery
15
was just not good, his credibility was bad, and it was a waste
16
of money, and he recommended that the sheriff distance himself
17
from Montgomery and Mike Zullo.
18
BY MR. SEGURA:
19
Q.
And what did he tell you the sheriff said in response?
20
A.
He told me that the sheriff said something to the effect
21
of:
Who are you to tell me what to do, and -- something of
22
that nature.
IEN
DS
14
Q.
24
is that right?
25
A.
FR
23
Okay.
Yes.
14:32:53
14:33:13
14:33:32
Sergeant Anglin was eventually taken off the case,
14:33:56
2161
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
the case because he told the sheriff that this investigation
was a waste of money?
A.
That, and another reason.
Q.
And what's the other reason?
A.
In reference to the conversation I just told you, I think a
short time later he was taken off the case.
Q.
a result of -- that were related to this Montgomery
Okay.
And is it your understanding that he was taken off
14:34:10
Are you aware of hard drives that were collected as
10
investigation?
11
A.
12
know.
13
Q.
And what do you know?
14
A.
That there were hard drives that were brought back.
15
information came from Travis Anglin.
16
Q.
17
brought back from where?
18
A.
Seattle.
19
Q.
And you became aware of these hard drives through Julie
20
Ahlquist, is that correct?
21
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q.
And who is she?
14:34:28
I have no personal knowledge of that other than what I
IEN
23
A.
She's the commander of records and ID, identification.
24
Q.
And when did you become aware of this through Ms. Ahlquist?
25
A.
I don't remember the exact date.
FR
14:34:44
And who -- what were -- these hard drives were
DS
Okay.
This
14:35:02
14:35:22
2162
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Okay.
Could you turn to Exhibit 2014, which is not in
evidence.
5th, 2015?
A.
I'm sorry.
Q.
Sure.
A.
I grabbed the wrong one.
Q.
Should be a --
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
Is this an e-mail from Ms. Ahlquist to you on May
Could you give me a moment?
14:35:49
This is an e-mail from Ms. Ahlquist to you on May
10
5th, 2015, in which she was forwarding other e-mails, is that
11
correct?
12
A.
Yes.
MR. SEGURA:
13
14
Exhibit 2014.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
15
MR. WALKER:
16
MR. COMO:
17
THE COURT:
18
14:36:36
No objection.
2014 is admitted.
19
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
22
correct?
DS
20
14:36:45
IEN
And this -- so this e-mail's from May 5th, 2015, is that
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
So would that be about the date that you learned of these
25
hard drives?
FR
14:36:26
14:36:54
2163
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I'm not sure if I knew that they existed prior to, but in
reference to their physical locale, I wasn't sure.
knew from conversations with Sergeant Anglin that they were
bringing back hard drives, so I'm not sure if that was before
or after this.
Q.
within -- through this e-mail, Ms. Ahlquist made you aware
of -- I believe there were -- that there were a total of 51
hard drives, is that correct?
Okay.
I mean, I
14:37:14
But you are aware that there were hard drives
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And this property report -- there was a property report
12
that she had come across, is that right?
13
A.
A found property report, yes.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And on that report were listed the 51 hard drives?
17
A.
Not all 51, but they were broke down, the 25, 26.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
these -- about these hard drives in May of 2015?
21
14:37:50
And why was she -- why was she asking you about
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
23
Q.
If you know.
24
A.
I do.
25
Q.
And why's that?
FR
14:38:10
If she knows.
BY MR. SEGURA:
IEN
22
And that was under Brian Mackiewicz's name?
DS
20
14:37:34
14:38:19
2164
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
She had contacted me in reference to finding out about a
FOIA request that had been made for documents relating to the
Seattle investigation, and so she was calling to find out if I
knew any information about that, because she had no record of a
report of an investigation in Seattle, and wanted to know if I
could shed some light on that.
Q.
the -- at the top, is from -- that she forwards to you, is from
her to Jenise Moreno.
Okay.
And the e-mail that she sends to you, the one at
Who is that?
10
A.
She is an employee that works on the fifth floor.
11
know know what her title is.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
Well, I can see here she's an assistant, I'm sorry, to
14
Chief MacIntyre.
15
Q.
Oh.
I don't
14:39:06
Is she --
Thank you.
14:39:20
And Chief MacIntyre's also copied on this e-mail, is
16
that correct?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
About this found property report?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And you, once you came across this information, you entered
22
it into IAPro, is that right?
IEN
DS
17
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And when you enter it into IAPro does a -- do you create an
25
identifying number for that?
FR
14:38:46
14:39:30
14:39:48
2165
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
this -- or what number was produced as a result of you entering
in this information in IAPro?
A.
I do not.
Q.
Did you advise anyone about these -- about the found
property report and the hard drives that were listed on these
reports?
A.
And do you recall what number you entered in for
14:39:59
I don't recall if I did or I didn't, but I had an
10
understanding that they knew, other people knew.
11
to me.
12
Q.
13
believe that to be?
14
A.
15
getting them down.
16
Q.
17
command?
18
A.
I don't know that for sure.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
you regularly met with the Monitor Team, is that right?
21
A.
Yes, sir.
22
Q.
And you would also meet internally before monitor meetings,
Okay.
This was new
And when you say other people knew, who do you
Well, my chain of command, whoever approved the process of
14:40:38
Would that have been Captain Bailey in your chain of
I don't know.
IEN
DS
When you were part of -- when you were part of PSB,
23
is that right, to prepare for monitor meetings?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And those meetings would be to make sure everyone was
FR
14:40:23
14:40:53
14:41:07
2166
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
prepared to answer potential questions from the Monitor Team,
is that right?
A.
In reference to their area of responsibility, yes.
Q.
Okay.
prep meeting in which everyone would sort of go over what might
come up?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You're aware of a large number, approximately 1500, of
identifications that were found at MCSO, is that correct?
So each person had their area, and there would be a
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you first became aware of these IDs through a call from
12
John Shamley, is that correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And who is Mr. Shamley?
15
A.
He is a supervisor over Property and Evidence.
16
Q.
And he, when he called you, he told you that Sergeant Knapp
17
was attempting to turn in a large volume of identifications, is
18
that right?
19
A.
Had attempted, yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
A.
That's -- yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
14:41:48
IEN
DS
Mr. Shamley didn't allow it, is that right?
14:42:00
14:42:14
And you at that time knew that identifications were
23
an issue in this litigation, is that right?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
14:41:24
And you actually created an IAPro entry regarding
14:42:24
2167
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
these identifications once you had heard from Mr. Shamley?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And so from there there would be like a specific
number assigned to the investigation?
A.
originator of that information, I thought for historical
reasons I needed to pull it, not necessarily that it was a
criminal offense, but I wanted to document that.
Q.
Well, I worked on the criminal side, so because I was the
Okay.
And by documenting it, you created a criminal
10
identifying number for this information, right, on IAPro?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
And do you remember what that identifying number is?
13
A.
I do not.
14
Q.
Okay.
15
Mr. Shamley, you e-mailed Captain Bailey to make him aware of
16
this large volume of identifications?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
right?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And you didn't receive any response from Captain Bailey or
22
Ms. Iafrate, correct?
14:43:17
And you also cc'd counsel, Ms. Iafrate, is that
DS
IEN
14:43:02
And that same day, upon learn -- hearing from
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
And at some point those identifications from Sergeant
25
Knapp, those were given to the administrative side of PSB, is
FR
14:42:41
14:43:33
14:43:52
2168
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
that right?
A.
I don't know how they got there.
Q.
But eventually they got there?
A.
Yes.
Q.
They were with Sergeant Bone, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you didn't have any other discussion about these
identifications until one of those prep meetings we were just
discussing before a monitor meeting, is that right?
10
A.
Could you repeat that?
11
Q.
Sure.
12
to prepare for the monitor visit that was held on July 17th of
13
2015, is that right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And during that meeting the identifications were discussed,
16
is that correct?
17
A.
In portion, yes.
18
Q.
All right.
19
A.
My memory was Captain Bailey, Larry Kratzer, Lieutenant Ken
20
Swingle, Ms. Loren Sanchez, Sergeant James Sparman, Ms. Michele
21
Iafrate.
22
Q.
14:44:17
You didn't have any -- there was a prep -- a meeting
14:44:30
DS
And who was present during that meeting?
14:44:54
IEN
And you asked to see the identifications during this
23
meeting?
24
A.
That's my memory, yes.
25
Q.
Why did you do that?
FR
14:43:59
14:45:12
2169
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I just wanted to see what that many -- what form they were
in.
Q.
identifications during that meeting, is that right?
A.
I believe so, from my memory, yes.
Q.
And you brought it up because you thought it's something
that the monitors might ask about?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you asked the question during that meeting, "If we're
If they were in a binder, how they were packaged.
And you were the one who brought up the topic of the
asked about any other IDs, licenses, what would be the
11
response," is that correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And when you asked that question, the people who you just
14
described to me were present at the meeting, is that right?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And when you said that, Ms. Iafrate responded that the
17
answer should be no, is that correct?
18
A.
It was more to it than just that.
19
Q.
She said that they should -- that the answer to that should
20
be no to the monitors, correct?
21
A.
She didn't -- yes, but she elaborated on the reason.
22
Q.
Captain Bailey -- you didn't actually touch the IDs, did
IEN
DS
10
you?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
But some people did take out identifications?
FR
23
14:45:33
14:45:48
14:46:04
14:46:24
14:46:37
2170
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
That occurred as I was leaving.
who specifically, I don't remember.
reaching in the bag.
Q.
Do you recall Captain Bailey reaching in?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And he was grabbing different portions of the I -- of IDs?
A.
I just remember him just putting his hand in and coming up
with some.
Q.
Okay.
The bag was opened, and
I just do remember people
14:46:56
Specifically what he did with them, I don't know.
There was a meeting with the monitors on the
10
following Monday, July 20th, 2015, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And so was Captain Bailey?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And Ms. Iafrate was present as well?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And the monitors asked -- had been informed about some
19
other identifications that had been recently found, correct?
20
A.
21
known about them prior to, I don't remember, but it was a
22
discussion.
And you were present for that meeting, right?
14:47:24
IEN
DS
I don't know if they had been recently found or they had
23
Q.
24
involved in handling, is that correct?
25
A.
FR
14:47:16
14:47:40
And one of those, there were 44 -- the 44 IDs that you were
Yeah.
I don't remember my 44 IDs being part of that
14:47:56
2171
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
conversation.
Q.
1500 were discussed at the monitor meeting, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And the monitors asked if there were any more
identifications, is that right?
A.
I don't remember exactly how it was asked, but yes.
Q.
And you didn't respond, correct?
A.
No.
10
Q.
Captain Bailey did?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And he said "no" to that question, is that correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And that wasn't accurate, right?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
And those IDs should have been disclosed to the plaintiffs?
Okay.
But other -- other identifications aside from the
THE COURT:
18
to sustain the objection.
20
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
22
into evidence.
14:48:52
DS
IEN
MR. SEGURA:
24
THE COURT:
FR
Could you turn to Exhibit 2003.
23
BY MR. SEGURA:
14:48:31
I think you are going to lay -- I'm going
19
25
14:48:21
There were other IDs.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
14:48:08
And this has been admitted
Could we publish it, Your Honor?

You may.
14:49:18
2172
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
This is an order from this Court, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
requiring that copies of identification documents that had been
seized by MCSO should be provided to the plaintiffs, is that
correct?
And you're -- you're familiar with this order,
14:49:32
And you are aware of -- and this order is an order
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you were aware of this order when you learned of the
12
1500 IDs?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And this order was discussed during that -- the
15
identifications should have been produced to the plaintiffs
16
pursuant to this order, is that correct?
14:49:52
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
THE COURT:
18
Are you going to establish that the
witness has any understanding?
20
MR. SEGURA:
MR. SEGURA:
24
THE COURT:
FR
14:50:27
Your Honor, might I add asking this
witness for a legal conclusion.
23
25
Apologies, Your Honor.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
IEN
22
DS
19
21
14:50:09
BY MR. SEGURA:
I missed that, Your Honor.

He just said "legal conclusion."
14:50:47
2173
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Is it your -- you've seen this order before, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
Could you turn to page 2 of this -- of this order.
Under paragraph A it says "copies of identification
4
5
documents seized by MCSO personnel from apparent members of the
plaintiffs' class," is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
It's your understanding, pursuant to that language, that
identifications that have been seized by MCSO personnel are to
10
be turned over to the plaintiffs, is that correct?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
12
14:51:15
Objection, foundation, legal
conclusion.
THE COURT:
13
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
14
15
BY MR. SEGURA:
16
Q.
17
monitor, correct?
Yes.
14:51:26
And those identifications should have been disclosed to the
MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
THE COURT:
19
understanding.
21
BY MR. SEGURA:
22
Q.
I think you need to ask her for her
DS
20
14:51:41
IEN
Are you aware that the monitor had made requests for copies
23
of identifications that had been found at MCSO?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
14:51:01
And pursuant to that understanding, should these
14:51:47
2174
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1500 identifications have been disclosed to the monitor?

MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
identification documents?
A.
What is your understanding of the monitor request for
That --
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
10
Well, that -- that IDs that came into
11
our possession in any form needs to be identified to the
12
Monitor Team.
13
BY MR. SEGURA:
14
Q.
15
been disclosed to the monitor, correct?
16
A.
17
that moment in time, based on legal advice, they were not
18
disclosed.
19
Q.
20
identifications with Loren Sanchez, is that correct?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
Okay.
14:52:29
So pursuant to that, these 1500 identifications should have
14:52:44
I'm not sure that they -- they wouldn't have been, but at
You had a -- you discussed the issue of the 1500
IEN
DS
Okay.
14:53:07
And who is Ms. Sanchez?
23
A.
She is an administrative personnel assigned to PSB.
24
Q.
And when did you have these discussions with Ms. Sanchez?
25
A.
You had asked me that during our deposition, and I don't
FR
14:52:07
14:53:24
2175
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
remember the date.
Q.
her upset?
A.
Yes, she did.
Q.
And do you know the date of that e-mail?
A.
I do not.
Q.
And do you know if that e-mail included communications with
counsel?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Is that Ms. Iafrate?
11
A.
Yes.
Okay.
Did Ms. Sanchez share an e-mail with you that made
MR. SEGURA:
12
14:53:55
Your Honor, I've gone as far as I can
13
without entering into the topic that we had discussed at
14
sidebar.
THE COURT:
15
16
How long do you think your questioning
Well, let me just ask.
We are going to go under seal
because I have made a finding that certain questions are
19
relevant, but also that the compelling interest standard
20
required by the Ninth Circuit justifies us taking these matters
21
under seal.
DS
18
14:54:32
IEN
It seems, though, that if we're going to go under
23
seal, I would like counsel to be prepared, in a little bit of
24
an out-of-order fashion, to do any cross-examination pertaining
25
to those under seal matters while we're under seal, so we only
FR
14:54:14
will take of matters that need to be under seal?
17
22
14:53:36
14:54:45
have to go under just once.
Does anybody object to that?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
MR. JIRAUCH:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
6
7
2176
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
No, Your Honor.
The County does not, Your Honor.
I have no objection, Judge.

All right.
14:54:59
How long do you think you're
questioning's going to take?

MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
I would estimate around 20 minutes.
All right.
Here's what we're going to do.
10
It's about time for an afternoon break, anyway.
Give you an
11
afternoon break.
12
the few minutes that are necessary, or for approximately the
13
half hour that will be necessary, this court proceeding will
14
proceed under seal.
At 3:10 we will reconvene, but this will, for
I do advise the parties that this matter will remain
15
16
under seal only so long as is necessary to serve the purposes
17
for which it is placed under seal, and that I'm going to
18
require the parties to keep me advised as to that status, as
19
well as I will feel free to do my own independent assessment of
20
that.
Is there anything else that needs to be said on the
record before we resume?
IEN
22
23
MR. SEGURA:
Your Honor, before we break, Exhibit 2014
24
has the attorneys -- and I failed to mention this -- has
25
confidential, attorneys' eyes only.
FR
14:55:25
14:55:48
DS
21
14:55:11
I believe that should
14:56:02
2177
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
probably be removed.
Counsel's telling me that we can take it off.
MR. MASTERSON:
THE COURT:
We may remove that, Judge.
Thank you.
Anything else that needs to be taken up?
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
14:56:14
That's all, Your Honor.
All right.
So for purposes of those in
attendance, we're going to resume under seal at 3:10.
anticipate that we will come out from under seal, based on the
10
estimates of the parties, sometime about quarter to 4:00 or
11
thereafter.
12
must be done under seal, I will reopen the courtroom and
13
provide notice for anybody who cares to come in.
As soon as we are finished with the portion that
MR. SEGURA:
14
One more issue, Your Honor.
Earlier I had asked Ms. Seagraves to look through
15
16
Exhibit 2010 to point to specific efforts made to contact ICE
17
about the individual in question.
18
much time in court.
19
break?
21
THE COURT:
I didn't want to take up too
Any objection to that?
14:56:56
No.
All right.
But if she's going to do that,
23
it doesn't strike me that that's a matter that needs to be
24
under seal.
25
identify that, but we hold that until we're back out from under
FR
14:56:40
Could I ask that she review it during
MR. POPOLIZIO:
IEN
22
THE COURT:
DS
20
14:56:24
So my suggestion would be that she do that, she

14:57:11
seal, and then you can ask that question.

MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
sealed by order of the Court.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IEN
22
DS
19
21
23
24
FR
25
All right.
Thank you.
(Page 2178, line 5, through page 2225, line 17,
20
Absolutely, Your Honor.
(Recess taken.)
2178
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
2225
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
THE COURT:
18
MR. SEGURA:
19
All right.
You may proceed, Mr. Segura.
Thank you.
BY MR. SEGURA:
21
Q.
22
previously asked you if you were aware of any efforts made to
DS
20
IEN
Lieutenant, before we went under seal we -- well, I had
23
locate the driver of the vehicle associated with Exhibit 1521,
24
is that right?
25
A.
FR
16:26:41
I don't know if it's necessarily driver; done any effort to
16:26:54
2226
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
do further investigation on that.
Q.
owner of the $260 --
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
-- is that correct?
I had asked you if there was effort to locate the possible
16:27:09
And you believed that that money came from the driver
6
7
of the vehicle in Exhibit 1521?
A.
That's what I recall, yes.
Q.
So I've looked at Exhibit 1521 to see any mention of
10
efforts to locate the owner of the vehicle.
11
any, but what I did see, and I was going to point you to it on
12
exhibit -- on page 288507 of that exhibit --
13
A.
Can you repeat the exhibit?
14
Q.
Yes.
15
the large one in the binder.
16
A.
Okay.
It's 2010.
I haven't found
It should be the large -- I believe it's
16:27:46
Thank you.
And what page, sir?
17
18
Q.
288507.
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Okay.
21
2015, Jennifer Johnson made contact with a person at ICE in an
22
attempt to find the names of four individuals from a group who
IEN
DS
And you see at the top where it says on April 9th,
23
were released to ICE, as well as to determine if any of those
24
individuals were in possession of the 260 at the time.
25
A.
FR
16:27:25
Yes.
16:27:53
16:28:15
2227
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that what you might have been referring to?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
of the vehicle, correct?
A.
don't see it in here, but this is obviously very voluminous,
and as I mentioned before, some parts were authored by
You don't see any effort there to contact the driver
My understanding was that it was -- an attempt was made.
10
different people, so --
11
Q.
12
aware that -- or you didn't know of any efforts to locate the
13
driver, is that correct?
14
A.
That's correct.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
A.
Yeah, it's different since I've had time to think about
17
this.
18
the -- done by -- documented by Jennifer Johnson in the Excel
19
computer documents that were turned over to the monitors in
20
reference to contacting individuals that were stopped during
21
Armendariz's traffic stops.
22
Q.
Okay.
16:28:37
In your deposition you told me that you weren't
And your answer's different today?
16:28:47
DS
I also think that there might have been an effort in
16:29:08
IEN
And you looked for that effort during the break, correct?
23
A.
24
have access to everything that was done.
25
Q.
FR
16:28:21
This is all I saw in reference to this document.
I don't
So you did not find any documentation in this file about
16:29:30
2228
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
efforts to locate the driver, correct?
A.
paragraph I was going to point out to you.
Q.
And that was not with respect to the driver, correct?
A.
I'm sorry?
Q.
And that was -- this paragraph is not in reference to the
driver, correct?
A.
I don't know if it is or it isn't.
Q.
Do you believe that the driver was released to ICE?
10
A.
I have no idea where he went.
11
Q.
In that paragraph it says, at the bottom it says:
12
Unfortunately, as of today, the names of the four individuals
13
have not been determined.
Other than what you pointed out, that was exactly the
MR. POPOLIZIO:
14
16:29:58
Objection, he's reading from a
document not in evidence.
16
BY MR. SEGURA:
17
Q.
If you could read it to yourself.
18
A.
The paragraph just prior to that also gives the status of
19
what happened, and I'm only basing it off what I'm reading
20
here.
21
Q.
22
correct?
DS
15
IEN
Okay.
16:30:28
16:31:08
And it says the driver was booked into jail,
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
So the next paragraph about an attempt to contact
25
individuals who were released to ICE, that would not be in
FR
16:30:08
16:31:15
reference to the driver, correct?
MR. POPOLIZIO:
THE COURT:
2229
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
I'm going to sustain that objection.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
you aware of any other documentation about efforts to
contact -- to locate the potential owner of the $260 in this
report?
A.
Other than the paragraph starting with April 9th, 2015, are
As I mentioned when I did my deposition with you, and since
10
that time, I know that there has been an Excel spreadsheet in
11
the computer that was turned over to the Monitor Team that had
12
documented all of the individuals that were identified and
13
stopped during those -- during that process.
14
it could be on those -- in those documents, but I don't know.
15
Q.
16
documents, correct?
17
A.
18
investigation, that anybody that could be identified was listed
19
in the database that was maintained and turned over to the
20
monitors.
21
Q.
22
no -- there's no documentation about efforts to locate the
16:32:15
Well, my understanding from spending time in this
DS
So I can't answer that question.
16:32:29
And again, what's documented in Exhibit 2010, there are
driver of the vehicle, correct?
24
MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
THE COURT:
FR
16:31:55
So my thought is
That you would be speculating as to whether it's in those
IEN
23
16:31:34
Objection, asked and answered.
Sustained.
16:32:44
2230
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.
Are you aware of Ralphaelita Montoya?
A.
Am I aware of her?
Q.
And she was part of the investigation, this investigation
regarding the $260, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And are you aware that Ms. Montoya has admitted to
transporting items from the Enforcement Support building to
Mr. Armendariz's house?
Yes.
10
A.
You'd have to show me that, because I don't -- I didn't
11
interview her and I don't recall any...
12
Q.
13
polygraphed?
14
A.
I am aware.
15
Q.
And that she -- the pol -- she was unable to be
16
polygraphed, is that correct?
17
A.
18
Q.
And do you have an understanding as to why she was unable
19
to take the polygraph?
20
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
And why is that?
22
A.
She just got physically sick, and I'm -- I believe that she
IEN
23
ended up them having to call paramedics, or something of that
24
nature.
25
Q.
FR
16:33:14
Are you aware that Ms. Montoya was attempted to be
DS
Okay.
16:33:04
Are you aware of an interview she had with
16:33:37
16:33:48
16:34:03
2231
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Sergeant Tennyson after the attempt to take a polygraph test?
A.
I'm not sure about that.
Q.
Okay.
Ms. Montoya had been involved in transporting items from HSU or
Enforcement Support to Mr. Armendariz's house?
A.
reference to that.
Q.
And what were you told?
A.
That it had to do with reports that he was working on, like
And you're not aware of any indication that
The only thing I remember is what I was told by Tennyson in
10
paperwork that he was working on, not items of evidence.
11
Q.
What do you mean by "paperwork"?
12
A.
Reports that he was working on.
13
Q.
So your understanding is that Officer Montoya didn't
14
transport items or seized items, but was involved in moving
15
reports?
16
A.
17
his house, if that's what you're asking.
18
Q.
19
investigation 15-21?
20
A.
21
that much.
22
Q.
16:34:40
16:34:59
I don't know of any items of evidence that she brought to
Do you know if Ms. Montoya was disciplined as a result of
DS
I didn't conduct those interviews and I have no knowledge
16:35:23
IEN
Were you aware if she received any discipline from
23
investigations stemming from -- from Mr. Armendariz or the HSU
24
unit?
25
A.
FR
16:34:21
I don't have any knowledge of that.
16:35:35
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
myself.
I have no further questions.
Mr. Popolizio.
Hold on one minute while I organize
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
5
6
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
that.
We're going to jump around a little bit.
16:35:56
I apologize for
But I'll try and make it as coherent as possible.
Lieutenant Seagraves, you testified a little bit about
9
10
Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
3
4
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Seagraves - RCX Popolizio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2232
the Seattle investigation a little while ago.

Do you recall that?
11
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Were you ever directly involved in the Seattle
14
investigation?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
Did you ever work with Mr. Zullo on the Seattle
17
investigation?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Did you ever work with Detective Mackiewicz on the Seattle
20
investigation?
21
A.
No.
22
Q.
Did you ever work with Detective Anglin on the Seattle
IEN
DS
12
23
investigation?
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Did you ever meet Mr. Montgomery?
FR
16:36:44
16:36:55
16:37:06
16:37:15
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever talk to Mr. Montgomery?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever review any documentation regarding that
investigation while that investigation was going on?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever travel to Seattle for this investigation?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you ever meet with Sheriff Arpaio with regard to the
10
Seattle investigation?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Did you ever meet with the chief deputy with regard to the
13
Seattle investigation?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Now, you testified that you had some expenditures -- strike
16
that.
16:37:45
16:37:54
You testified that you had to okay some expenses for
17
18
travel for the Seattle investigation.
19
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
21
Q.
Did you sign off on all the travel for that investigation?
22
A.
No.
IEN
DS
20
23
Q.
24
investigation for any of the detectives or Posse people
25
involved?
FR
16:37:25
16:38:11
How many times did you sign off on travel for the Seattle
16:38:34
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
If you could clarify, are you talking about expenditures
such as the memos I signed, or --
Q.
Travel.
A.
None.
Q.
You also testified that someone told you that Sheriff
Arpaio had invested $10,000 in the Seattle investigation, is
that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
Do you recall that?
Do you know that firsthand knowledge whether Sheriff
Arpaio actually did that?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Did you ever see a -- a check from Sheriff Arpaio to some
13
account where that money went into for this investigation?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
So you don't have firsthand knowledge at all as to whether
16
Sheriff Arpaio invested anything monetarily in that
17
investigation, do you?
18
A.
I do not.
19
Q.
And although you signed off on some travel for that
20
investigation, you have no knowledge as to what was going on in
21
that investigation, do you?
22
A.
DS
10
16:39:14
16:39:24
16:40:04
IEN
No.
23
Q.
24
occurring in that investigation, do you?
25
A.
FR
16:38:49
You don't know of any details with regard to what was
No.
16:40:26
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
Do you have most of your knowledge with regard to that
investigation from the media?
A.
I'm not sure how to answer that.
Q.
Have you read media articles, articles in newspapers about
the Seattle investigation?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Have you read more than one?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Have you read more than five?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
There are a lot of articles on this?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
And you've read a lot of those articles.
14
A.
Yes.
That's very broad.
16:40:55
15
MR. POPOLIZIO:
16
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
18
Q.
19
involving Cisco Perez and his allegations.
There was some the testimony about an investigation
DS
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And I believe that you testified that there was an
IEN
21
23
administrative investigation going on which was stopped when a
24
criminal investigation began, is that right?
25
A.
FR
16:41:56
Excuse me one moment.
17
20
16:40:49
The criminal came, yes.
16:42:05
16:42:28
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And why did it start out as an administration, and then it
stopped and then became a criminal investigation?
A.
criminal investigation is done.
Well, the administrative portion has to wait until the
In addition to if the -- if you have both
5
6
investigations and you have an administrative investigation,
you'd like to know what's being said in the criminal
beforehand.
in this particular case we had deputies coming in for multiple
And you don't want to confuse the two by having --
10
interviews.
11
were compelled statements, that they gave information that was
12
going to be used against them criminally.
13
Q.
I didn't want there to be any confusion that they
Let's look at Exhibit 2881.
16:43:27
I believe that's admitted.
Let's go to page 9.
14
15
A.
Sir, did you say 2881?
16
Q.
Yes.
16:44:14
Page 9.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
17
Hold on one second, Your Honor,
18
please.
19
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
20
Q.
21
where it says "Criminal Investigation"?
22
A.
DS
Would you please look down to the bottom of the page 2.A
16:45:07
IEN
Yes.
23
Q.
24
on that, and in that it was the only reference in the policy,
25
the extent of the criminal investigation IA policy in GH-2.
FR
16:43:09
And if you recall, there was some questioning this morning
16:45:28
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Do you recall that?
1
2
A.
Yes.
Q.
As a lieutenant who's worked in Internal Affairs a couple
of times and knowing this policy, as you testified to, is there
any need to have any more in this policy with regard to
criminal investigations?
A.
investigation, it just so happens to be an employee.
Q.
Title 13 is what I use, because it's just a criminal
So no.
Thank you.
Lieutenant Seagraves, you remember this morning there
10
11
were some questioning, you gave some testimony, with regard to
12
missing money.
In fact, $260.
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Now, let's look at Exhibit 2887.
morning?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
This investigation, or at least this memorandum here, is
20
dated February 26, 2015.
DS
17
16:48:03
Do you see that?
I do.
IEN
A.
23
Q.
24
that right?
25
A.
FR
16:47:25
You remember discussing exhibit -- this exhibit this
16
22
16:46:59
Do you remember that?
13
21
16:45:49
This investigation arises out of an earlier incident, is
Yes.
16:48:16
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Q.
And do you know the date of the incident?
A.
Just June of 2010.
Q.
Why is this being investigated five years later?
A.
Well, it was relevant because Chief Sheridan had requested
that each division take inventory of what they had, whether
they're license, property.
received was to go down to Enforcement Support where the human
smuggling, and specifically Armendariz used to work out of, and
search the building for anything.
I don't...
And one of the orders that PSB
And during the course of us
searching the building for anything that might be relevant --
11
license plate; IDs; records dating back during the time of the
12
Human Smuggling Unit -- this case was found, and it had the
13
open envelope where the money was at and there was no money
14
inside, so clearly something had happened.
15
Q.
It was ordered by the chief deputy --
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
-- that you go to the divisions and look to see if there
18
was something that you needed to investigate?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Wasn't ordered by the monitor?
21
A.
No, it was chief deputy.
IEN
DS
10
22
THE COURT:
16:49:05
16:49:25
16:49:35
What exhibit is that, Mr. Popolizio?
23
MR. POPOLIZIO:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. POPOLIZIO:
FR
16:48:41
What exhibit?
Yeah.
It's 2887, Your Honor.
16:49:55
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
THE COURT:
Thank you.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
with regard to 1500 IDs and a meeting with regard to those IDs,
or a meeting in which those IDs were discussed.
Now, we also heard some testimony from you this morning
Do you recall that?
6
7
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
made some statements during that meeting, right?
Now, in your testimony you stated that Ms. Iafrate
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Do you recall that you also testified that Ms. Iafrate
12
elaborated?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
She said more than just the word "no"?
15
A.
That's correct.
16
Q.
During that meeting with regard to the 1500 IDs, did
17
Ms. Iafrate comment something to the effect that "It must be
18
determined if the IDs --"
16:50:36
MR. SEGURA:
19
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
21
Q.
DS
20
Objection, leading.
16:51:14
MR. KILLEBREW:
23
THE COURT:
24
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
25
Q.
FR
16:50:52
"-- met the element of the order"?
IEN
22
16:50:11
Objection, leading.
Sustained.
Do you recall what Ms. Iafrate said in that meeting with
16:51:23
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
regard to the court order?
A.
Generally, yes.
Q.
And what was that?
A.
That she felt that the IDs didn't meet the order, and -- in
her opinion, and she was going to do some additional research
to determine whether or not they were within the parameters of
the court order, and that she would let us know, but in the
meantime to respond negatively.

MR. POPOLIZIO:
Could we look at Exhibit 2003, please.
10
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
11
Q.
Look at the second page, A.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Where it says "copies of identification documents seized by
14
MCSO personnel from apparent members of the plaintiff class."

Do you see that?
15
16
A.
I do.
17
Q.
Do you have any understanding of what the plaintiff class
18
is?
19
A.
20
their race, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.
21
Q.
That's your understanding?
22
A.
Yes.
16:52:17
16:52:31
IEN
DS
Individuals that have been discriminated against because of
23
Q.
24
that were discussed in this July 17th, 2015 meeting were taken
25
from members of the plaintiff class?
FR
16:51:43
16:52:37
Do you know whether any of the IDs that was discussed --
16:53:01
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
I don't know that.
Q.
Do you know anything about how these IDs were originally
obtained?
A.
I don't know that.
Q.
During that meeting, if you recall, on July 17, the one
that you were referring to earlier, was there any determination
as to whether any of the IDs in that room were seized from the
plaintiffs class?
A.
I don't know that.
10
Q.
The IDs that you said you were looking at, were they in a
11
bag?
12
A.
They were in a bag, yes.
13
Q.
Could you tell anything specific about the IDs by just
14
looking in the bag that the IDs were in?
15
A.
Looking in or just looking at?
16
Q.
Looking at how they were presented to you in that bag.
17
A.
No.
18
Q.
And by just looking, then, you couldn't determine whether
19
they had been seized.
20
A.
No.
21
Q.
Now, at any time during that meeting on July 17th, 2015,
22
was there any discussion about destroying the IDs to prevent
16:53:55
the Court from knowing about them?
24
MR. KILLEBREW:
25
THE COURT:
FR
16:53:37
16:54:17
DS
IEN
23
16:53:13
Objection, leading.
Sustained.
16:54:34
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
IDs discussed?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Did anybody in that meeting suggest to destroy those IDs?
During that meeting was the topic of what to do with the
MR. KILLEBREW:
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
Objection, leading.
Join.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
It's a direct question, Your Honor.
I'm going to overrule.
You may answer.
10
THE WITNESS:
11
16:55:10
No.
12
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
13
Q.
14
order the destruction of those IDs?
15
A.
No.
16
Q.
At any time after that meeting, to your knowledge, did any
17
MCSO personnel order the destruction of those IDs?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
At any time during that meeting did any MCSO personnel
20
suggest that the IDs should not be eventually disclosed to the
21
monitor?
22
A.
DS
16:55:32
16:55:49
IEN
No.
23
Q.
24
suggest that the IDs should not be eventually disclosed to the
25
Court?
FR
16:54:59
16:56:07
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
A.
No.
Q.
At any time during that meeting did anybody suggest that
Judge Snow's order regarding collecting identifications should
be defied?
MR. SEGURA:
Objection, leading.
MR. KILLEBREW:
THE COURT:
7
8
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
16:56:19
Objection, leading.
Sustained.
Lieutenant Seagraves, since December 23rd, 2011, were you
10
ever given an order by anyone at MCSO to violate the
11
preliminary injunction issued by the Court?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
To your knowledge, did anybody at MCSO ever issue an order
14
to any MCSO personnel to violate the preliminary injunction
15
order of this Court?
16
A.
I have no knowledge of that.
17
Q.
To your knowledge, did anybody at MCSO give any order to
18
interfere with the training calculated to -- to ensure MCSO
19
compliance with the preliminary injunction?
20
A.
MR. SEGURA:
23
24
FR
25
16:57:27
Objection, Your Honor, foundation.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
IEN
22
16:57:13
No.
DS
21
16:56:55
It's just to her knowledge, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
Yeah, that was the question was to her
knowledge, if I understood the question.
Objection overruled.
16:57:37
2244
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Seagraves - RDX Segura, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q.
to delay the training that would ensure MCSO compliance with
the preliminary injunction?
A.
And to your knowledge, did anybody at MCSO give any order
No.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
6
7
Thank you, Ms. Seagraves.
Lieutenant Seagraves, I apologize.

THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
That's okay.
Mr. Jirauch.
MR. JIRAUCH:
10
11
16:57:50
The County has no questions of
Lieutenant Seagraves at this time, Your Honor.

THE COURT:
12
MR. COMO:
13
THE COURT:
14
MR. SEGURA:
15
Mr. Como.
No questions, Your Honor.
Any follow-up, Mr. Segura?
Just a few questions, Your Honor.
17
BY MR. SEGURA:
18
Q.
19
obligation to be truthful with the court-appointed monitor?
20
A.
Lieutenant Seagraves, are you aware of any independent
DS
You need to be truthful with the monitors, yes.

MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
IEN
22
16:58:21
I have no further questions.

I do have one for you,
23
Lieutenant Seagraves, maybe a few.
24
precise and I want you to be precise about your answers and
25
listen carefully to my question.
FR
16:58:10
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
16
21
16:58:00
And I want to be very
And if I tell you to answer
16:58:35
2245
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
Seagraves - RDX Segura, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing
only yes or no, that's all I want you to answer.
Did I hear you say something about somebody else that
2
3
attended that -- one of those meetings related to the monitor
that got upset at Ms. Iafrate for some reason?

THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
6
7
16:58:49
And did that person indicate to you -- and
only answer yes or no -- why they got upset at Ms. Iafrate?

THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
9
10
Yes.
Yes.
And did it have to do with a communication
that she had received from Ms. Iafrate?

THE WITNESS:
11
THE COURT:
12
Yes.
And did that communication relate to the
13
instruction that Ms. Iafrate had given in the meeting regarding
14
the identifications?
THE WITNESS:
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. SEGURA:
17
No.
16:59:20
No further questions.
Your Honor, if I could just raise, I
failed to mention that we are -- we have made requests for this
19
e-mail between -- or at least the date of the e-mail between
20
Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Iafrate.
21
her deposition.
22
that Ms. -- Lieutenant Seagraves sent to Captain Bailey and
IEN
DS
18
I believe that was ordered during
Ms. Iafrate upon learning of the IDs, and have not been
24
provided that.
FR
16:59:30
We've also asked for another -- the e-mail
23
25
16:59:05
So I would just request that we have the opportunity,
16:59:50
if necessary, to reopen this once receiving those documents.

THE COURT:
All right.
Yes, you can have permission to reopen it if it's
3
4
2246
OF
TH
EF
OG
BO
W
.CO
M
appropriate, once you deal with those documents.

Anything else to be raised today?
17:00:06
We will then reassemble tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
I'm going to think overnight, too, about -- I
7
8
appreciate the information that Chief Sheridan's going to
provide tomorrow, and I'm going to think overnight about how to
10
deal with the sealed proceeding so that we only keep sealed
11
those parts that need to be sealed, if any, and make that
12
determination promptly.
And I may talk to the parties if we need to have
13
14
further hearings about it.
MR. SEGURA:
THE COURT:
18
THE COURT:
DS
IEN
22
She's not under subpoena?
She's not under subpoena.
All right.
You can step down, Lieutenant.

THE WITNESS:
17:00:56
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
23
THE COURT:
24
(Proceedings concluded at 5 o'clock p.m.)
FR
25
17:00:42
She's not.
MR. POPOLIZIO:
19
21
Is she under
subpoena?
17
20
We may discuss that tomorrow.
Can Lieutenant Seagraves be excused?
15
16
17:00:24
We'll see you all tomorrow.
2247
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 2nd day of October,
17
18
2015.
20
21
IEN
22
DS
19
23
24
FR
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres v. Arpaio #1455 Oct 1 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 9 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 #1455 Oct 1 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 9 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 9, Pages 2007-2247)

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 the Movants Maricopa County Attorney's Office and Maricopa

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 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 Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Young

SUZANNE KIMBERLY SEAGRAVES

Direct Examination by Mr. Segura

Letter to Charlie Armendariz from Joseph

MCSO Memorandum from Lt Seagraves to Captain

MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to

MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Anglin to

E-mail chain re Melendres Court Order dated

MCSO Memorandum from Deputy Chief Lopez to

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing

MCSO Memorandum from Jennifer Johnson to

NY Times Article "Hiding Details of Dubious

Case CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS - Defendant Arpaio's

Video Clip 3 Fox News, DOJ dated 4/4/2012

Video Clip 3 Newsmaker with John Hook - Fox,

Video Clip 1 Fox News, Your World with Neil

Transcript of Telephone Interview of Deputy

Response to 7/22/2015 Monitor Document Request

February 2015 Memorandum from Tennyson to

Cosme Interview by Tennyson

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing

This is civil case number 07-2513,

Melendres, et al., v. Arpaio, et al., on for continued

Good morning, Your Honor.

and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.

Dan Pochoda from the ACLU

of Arizona for plaintiffs.

Good morning, Your Honor.

from Covington & Burling, Stanley Young, Tammy Albarran, and

Good morning, Your Honor.

Killebrew and Cynthia Coe for the United States.

Good morning, Judge.

individual contemnors, and with us is Holly McGee.

Counsel, please announce your appearance.

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing

and Charles Jirauch appearing on behalf of Maricopa County.

Good morning, Judge.

representing Chief Brian Sands.

Good morning, Your Honor.

making a special appearance for Sheriff Arpaio.

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/1/15 Evidentiary Hearing

Good morning, Your Honor.