feb 1 doj letter

8/3/2019 Feb 1 Doj Letter

1/34

Wrrum B. Jorurs, JR.TETEPH0TTE: (602) 263-1714Fnx: (6021 200-7801E-MArr: wJoNEs@Jsfl nRl.coMJOHN T. MASTERSONTETEPHoNE: (602) 263.7330Fnx: (602) 200-7846E.MAIt: [email protected] J. Popouzro*TETEPfl oNE: (0021 263-174,|Fx: (602) 200-7876E.MAtt: [email protected] ADMITIED IN CONNEcTIcUT

AND WASHINGTOil, D.C.

WLffrN&LJI T HOCHULI, P.L.C. zgflI iIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUESurrE 800PHoENrx, AnrzoruA 85012Proru: (602) 263.1700Fnx: (602) 651.7599WWW.JSHTIRM.COM

February 1,2012Thomas E.PerezAssistant Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSpecial Litigation Section950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530-0001

Re: U.S. v. MCSO, et al.CV 1 O- 10878-PHX-GMSDear Mr. Perez;

Thank you for your January 17, 2012 letter in response to my January 4, 2012letter to you regarding the Title VI investigation of the Maricopa County SherifPs Office, yourLetter of Findings and our request for the basis of those findings.While it is your prerogative to refuse to engage in point by point refutation of myJanuary 4, 2}I2letter's content, painting our request for information as an attempt to delay thisinvestigation, once again, appears to demonstrate the DOJ's insistence to ignore the MCSO's andSheriff Arpaio's participation and cooperation with this investigation over the last 16 months, as

well as their recent continued cooperation.As you well know, the MCSO has recently provided you with over six thousandpages of documeniation in response to the DOJ's recent supplemental request.l In addition, mypatttt"rs and I have scheduled a February 6,2012 meeting with DOJ attorneys to discuss theresolution of this investigation, a meeting that will occur well within your requested sixty (60)

I See he Supplemental Response to the First Request for Documents and Information dated January 18,2012attached as Exhibit l.2754291.1


2/34

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page2day time frame. S/e look forward to our February discussions with Roy Austin and JonathonSmith of your office. Certainly, we extend an invitation to this meeting to you, also.

To be cler, our goal s to cooperte snd rech resolution to th Ttle Wnvestigton. Despte your contenton, our request for nformaton is not calculated to d.elythe resolution of th matter, but rather to brng it to a sound, fctully bsed concluson Yetthe resistance that the DOJ has mounted to the MCSO's request for facts is frankly alarming.The Civil Rights Division's refusal to provide any of the information that we seek is evencontrary to Attorney General Eric Holder's recent comment to Timot Overton, SpecialAssistant to Sheriff Arpaio, at the January 17, 2012 Major County Sheriffs Meeting inWashington,'D.C. As the Attomey General stated, "We need to work together." Indeed, theonly way to enter into the constructive dialogue and to effectively'owork together," as you andAttorney General Holder respectively suggest, is for the DOJ to provide the factual detail behindits findings in this investigation.Make no mistake, we look forward to meeting with DOJ attorneys to address theDOJ's findings and to bring this Title VI investigation to a close. V/ith our goals clearly stated toavoid any confusion as to Sheriff Arpaio's and the MCSO's intent, I will address the issues andarguments set forth in your January 17,20lzletter.The DOJ's Refusal to P{qvide Facts is the ObstacleTo borrow your phrase, "its strains credulity" that the DOJ believes that it hasprovided the facts on which it bases its findings. And that to whioh you have referred in yourJanuary 17,2072letter as the facts forming the basis of the DOJ's findings, leaves much to bedesired.

The Length Of A Letter And Extent Of An InvestigationIs Not A Substitute For X'actAlthough you maintain otherwise, neither the sheer lengfh of your conclusoryDecember 15,2011 letter, nor the length of the DOJ's investigation is a substitute for the facts weseek. While your letter is the conduit chosen to deliver the conclusions of the DOJ's

investigation, its length alone does not make it factual. What's more, the length of the DOJ'sinvestigation does not remedy the lack of factual support for the DOJ's conclusions, either. V/ehope that Mr. Austin and Mr. Smith will not only shed light on the DOJ's findings during ourFebruary 6,2012 meeting, but also provide the factual bases that we have requested or, at thevery least, be willing to discuss a blueprint for the provision of the facts that the DOJ claims tosupport its findings. When we met with Messrs. Austin, Gray, Smith, and Shapiro on themorning of December 15, 201I, we \rere assured that we would be provided with at least somefacts. Accordingly, we are baffled by the DOJ's subsequent, drastic change of position, despiteAttomey General Holder's Statement that "we need to work together."275429r.1


3/34

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page 3

The DOJ's Reliance OnMelendres And OtherLitigation Is MisplacedYour reliance on the lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio, United States District CourtCase No. CV07-2513-PHX-GMS and, specifically, a recent decision in that case, as a factualbasis of the DOJ's conclusions in this investigation is misplaced. United States District CourtJudge Murray Snow's December 23, 20Il interlocutory ecision in Melendres was issued eightdays after your December 15, 20ll Letter of Findings.' To portray that decision or the mereexistence of allegations in Melendres as providing a factual basis of the DOJ's December 15,2011 findings in this Title VI investigation is disingenuous. Whle the mention of Melendresmy serve to whp the unknowng into frenzy of protest, s n ttorney you well know thutthe mere extence of accusatons in ltigtion proves nothng.Moreover, the separate Orders set forth in Judge Snow's December 23,2011Memorandum of Decision n Melendres neither establish thatracial profiling nor any of the otheracts alleged in that lawsuit occurred. Contrary to your assertion, none of Judge Snow'sDecember 23,2011 Orders establishes a pattem and practice of racial profiling on the part of theMCSO, either. No one can seriously and truthfully argue otherwise.We are also troubled by your position that a destruction of documents referenced

it Melendres somehow provides the factual bases of your findings in this Title VI investigation.As the DOJ contends that the basis of its frndings in this investigation came from informationthat the MCSO provided, the DOJ certainly did not rely on the unavailable documents that JudgeSnow addressed in his December 23,2011 Order. Thus, the DOJ's claim that documents that itnever received, let alone considered, are now somehow the factual bases of its findings in thisinvestigation is puzzling. Judge Snow's Orders in Melendres simply do not provide any factualbasis for your December 15, 20ll Letter of Findings--and neither does your reference to twoother unrelated actions.3

z See20l1U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148223.tYourreliance onMorqv. MricopaCounty, No.2:09-cv-l719andNidov. MaricopaCounty, No.2:l0-cv-1291 aspurported evidence of a pattern and practice of the MCSO's alleged racial profiling is equally as misplaced as yourreliance on Melendres. While both Mor and Nido concluded by settlement and stipulated dismissal, neither casecontained any ruling that racial profiling occurred. Mora Fxned on whether probable cause existed to stop Plaintiffsin the inner perimeter of a warrant execution that the court decided was not clearly established; in addition, thedeputy who altegedly made the stop and subsequent release in Mora could not be identified, leaving the MCSOunable to refute Plaintiffs' claims. Moreover, Nido was an excessive force case that resulted in the MCSO'sdismissal of the involved deputy, but also in aggravated assault charges against him. Again, unproven allegations inan action should not constitute the factuai bases of the DOJ's findings or a pattern and practice of racial profiling.27542gt.1


4/34

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page 4

Media Reports Are InsufficientYour vague reference to "media accounts" also does not provide the factualspecificity we seek, either. In contrast to the DOJ, we are not comfortable relying on ambiguousreferences to o'numerous media accounts of alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions byMCSO officials" as factual basis of the DOJ's findings in this matter.a Perhaps media reports area sufficient bases for the DOJ to launch a Title VI investigation, as DOJ attorneys havementioned many times during the instant investigation. Media reports, however, are neither asubstitute for fact, nor should they constitute the factual basis of the DOJ's findings andassociated requests to revamp certain operations of the MCSO.

The DOJ's Refusal to IdentiS Documents is UnreasonableThank you for your acknowledgement of the MCSO's cooperation with regard tothe provision of "thousands . of documents including policies, procedures, reports, trainingmaterials, raw data and other documents..." as well as "dozens of MCSO command staff,deputies, detention offrcers, and posse members..." for interviews.t Although you did notmention the one hundred forty five (145) inmate interviews that the MCSO arranged at theDOJ's request, the acknowledgement of the MCSO's extensive cooperation is very muchappreciated. Nevertheless, I must address the inaccuracy of your comments regarding theprovision of documents and the occurrence of interviews as providing the factual bases to theDOJ's findings that we seek. I will address your comments as to the provision of documentsfirst.

The Identification Of The Documents On Which The DOJ ReliesIs Easier Than The DOJ Portrays It To BeWe reject the DOJ's position that a return of each page that the MCSO providedelectronically is required to furnish the factual basis of the DOJ's findings. 'We made no suchrequest and complying with our request for documents and information on which the DOJ and itsexperts rely does not in any way require the DOJ to simply return documents to us. Theabsurdity of that position is obvious.Interestingly, we have underreported the number of pages of documents that theMCSO has provided to the DOJ in this investigation. lncluding the 6,006 pages that the MCSOhas recently provided to the DOJ on January 18,2012, the MCSO has provided the DOJ 92,402pages of documents on compact discs. However, an estimate of the amount of documents on

o See pg.2, paragraph I of the January 17,2012letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attorneyJoseph J. Popolizio.s See pg.2, paragraph2 of fhe January 17,z}lzletter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attomeyJoseph J. Popoiizio.27s429t.1


5/34

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page 5each of the 123 gigabytes of documents previously provided to the DOJ on a93l gigabyte harddrive is approximately 15,477 pages of documents per gigabyte. As a result, an estimated1,895,623 pages of documents are contained in the hard drive that the MCSO provided to theDOJ pursuant to the DOJ's requests for information and documents. Thus, the MCSO hasprovided the DOJ with approximately 1,988,025 pages of documents pursuant to the DOJ'srequests in this Title VI investigation.u Certainly, this is a staggering amount of documentation.Nevertheless, \ile reject the DOJ's position that a retum of each page that the MCSO provided isrequired to respond to the MCSO's request for the factual bases of the DOJ's findings.

More likely than not, the DOJ does not rely on each of the almost 2,000,000 pagesof documentation that the MCSO provided, Certainly, the DOJ has focused on a subset of pagesthat supposedly caused it concern and on which it relies to support its findings. Accordingly, theset of documents we seek is relatively more concise and more readily available for production tothe MCSO than you intimate.The MCSO provided the documentation that the DOJ requested in searchable,easily retrievable electronic format. Documents are either Bates labeled or categorized insubfolders, and are identified by topic, document request, number andlor if applicable, specificjail facility, 'We organized these documents to provide ease of identification for the DOJ and theMCSO at any stage of the investigation, but especially with this final stage in mind.The MCSO facltted the DOJ's nvestgtion by dentifyng nd orgnzing an

overwhelming amount of MCSO documentton. Now t is time for the DOJ to reciprocte byidenffing the documents on whch t focased, wth the use of the very system that the MCSOdeved. If the DOJ has relied on documentation that the MCSO provided, then the DOJ shouldbe able to identiSr those documents with relative ease. Despite this fact, the DOJ simply hasrefused to identify the documentation on which it relied to reach its findings.The DOJ's refasal tntmount to statng tht the MCSO has provded ahaystck of documents nd that the MCSO must engage n the utterly mpossible exerce offtndng the needles on whch the DOf refies to support its Jndings. The DOJ and its expertscan identify the documents on which they focused because of the well organized format bywhich the MCSO provided these documents. To expect the MCSO to guess which documents on

which the DOJ relied to reach its findings is patently unfair. Nevertheless, we pledge to workwith the DOJ to reconcile our differences and the first step in this reconciliation process begins atour February 6,2012 meeting.6 Lexis Nexis document estimator was utilized to arrive at the estimated number of documents available on the harddrive that the MCSO provided. In anticipation of potential criticism regarding the use of this tool, we remind theDOJ of the voluminous documentation provided. Moreover, even if the margin of error \ryas an absurd +/- 500,000,the MCSO would still have provided approximately 1,500,000 pages of documentation pursuant to the DOJ'srequests.27s4291.l


6/34

JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.February I,20I2Page 6

The DOJ Overstated The Information Available To The MCSOAs A Result Of The Interview ProcessIn addition to the oversimplification of our request for documents, the DOJ alsomade generalizations regarding the information that the DOJ gleaned from interviews itconducted in this investigation. To state that MSO attorneys were present for many of theinterviews is exaggerated and misleading.As you are well aware, my partners and I did not attend all of the interviews thatthe DOJ conducted in this investigation. The DOJ allowed us to attend only 53 MCSOcommand staff interviews, including interviews of volunteer Sheriffs Posse members, andexcluded us from all 32 of the non-cormand staff interviews. These were the DOJ's groundrules, which we followed. Thus, we attended none of the MCSO staff interviews to which yourefer and from which the DOJ allegedly gleaned the disparaging sound bites and information setforth in your December 15,2011 letter. In addition, and again at the DOJ's request, we wereneither allowed to attend any of the 145 inmate interviews, nor any of the purported interviewsof unidentified individuals.Thus, the DOJ contends that it conducted over 400 interviews, but we wereallowed to attend only 53 of those interviews. As a result, we did not participate in well over 347interviews that the DOJ conducted in this investigation. As a result, it s mpossble to refer tonon-extent notes from or recall the results of nterviews tht the DOJ forbd us to attend to'tgn the mple understandng of [the DOJ'sJJindngs" as you suggested in your January 17,2012 letter.Accordingly, the DOJ's contention that to ascertain the bases of its findings wemust merely refer to approximately 2,000,000 documents and the results of interviews, themajority of which we never attended, "strains credulity" to borrow your phrase, once again. TheDOJ's refusal to provide the information we requested and to identiff by number documentsreadily available in electronic format, sheds a dim light on the character of the DOJ'sinvestigation and, perhaps, illustrates Sheriff Arpaio's contention that this investigation is"political" and, therefore, suspect. Surely, because of MCSO cooperation, the DOJ has the basisof its findings in a well organized, accessible format. Thus, sharing the basis of its findings with

the MCSO should not be a problem.DOJ Statements Regarding Sex Crimes Are Misleading

Your reference to uninvestigated sex crimes as a basis of the DOJ's findings isalso misleading. While you are correct in stating that the MCSO has "ample information"concerning this issue, your comments certainly do not reflect this information. In fact, amongthe burdensome requests from the DOJ that resulted in the MCSO's copious production, not oneof the DOJ's requests targeted these investigations. Like the DOJ's recent, yet unfoundedreliarrce on the Melendres decision, the Oi no-w appears to rely heavily on recent, inaccurate2754291.1


7/34

JONES, SKELTON ,SL HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012PageTreports that hundreds of sex crimes remain rurinvestigated. To dispel the insinuation and rumorthat hundreds of sexual assaults and molestations remain uninvestigated or unresolved, I offer thefollowing factual overview.

Many of the matters to which you allude pre-existed MCSO involvement. MCSObecame aware of many of these matters after a local municipality contracted itto provide lawenforcement services due to the disbanding of that municipality's police department. As a result,the MCSO inherited a plethora of open matters and these matters, like many others in this groupof investigations, were not exclusively of a sexual nature. Most importantly, although the DOJcriticizes the MCSO for an alleged failure to monitor itself, the MCSO's own, internal auditrevealed that these matters needed attention. As a result of this audit, the MCSO quickly movedforward to investigate each matter.Within eight months after this audit, 189 of these matters were "closedexceptionally cleared." Most importantly, only four of these matters remain open today. Thecontinued pendency of these matters are either due to awaiting the results of DNA testing fromthe Department of Public Safety Q), the pending interview of a suspect serving in the armedforces due to a DNA test confirmation (1), or the decision of the Maricopa County Attorney'sOffice as to whether it will prosecute (1). The MCSO has fully addressed the concerns that theseopen matters presented. Therefore, to intimate that hundreds of sexual assault and childmolestation cases remain unattended under the MCSO's watch is simply disingenuous and doesnothing but further the dissemination of falsehood.

The Statistical Report on Which the DOJ Relies is ReadilyAvailable for Easy DisclosureThe DOJ could easily provide the statistical report regarding traffic stopsreferenced in your December l5,2}ll letter. The use of the internet would allow that to happenwith the touch of a button. Yet, the DOJ not only refuses to provide this report on which itheavily relies, but your January 17, 2012 letter failed to even mention this report despite ourspecific request for it. Why? Although the MCSO has provided all of the information that theDOJ requests and more, the DOJ's refusal to provide the factual bases of its findings makesSheriff Arpaio and the MCSO doubt the DOJ's desire to enter into the 'oconstructive dialogue" it

proposed. Nevertheless, both sides of this investigation must endeavor to make the upcomingFebruary 6,2012 meeting, and subsequent meetings and communications, fruitful. And despiteyour suggestion otherwise, the MCSO is prepared to do just that.Mt. Perez,I can ommiserate regarding the "sheer volume" of our requests forinformation and documents, but only because it is a true mirror image of, and demonstrates thedearth of factual support for, the DOJ's findings presented in your December 15,2011 letter.The request for information tracks the statements in your letter very closely. While the form ofthe requests does resemble written discovery in litigation, I was perfectly clear that litigation

2754291.1


8/34

JONES, SKELTON 6l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page 8could and should be avoided. That thought still prevails on our side of this equation; avoidinglitigation is clearly in both parties' best interests.

However, as I stated in my January 4,2012 letter, and as you ignored in yourJanuary 17, 2\lzletter, if we proceed to undesired litigation, it is probable that the court willcompel the DOJ to provide what we now request. In litigation, the rules of civil procedure andevidence will, of course, apply. Even disclosure of the identities of the interviewees will occur,as without our having an opportunity to interview or depose witnesses on whose testimony theDOJ relies, the inadmissibility of their hearsay statements is clear. And as you have failed toaddress our inquiry as to whether affidavits or interview recordings or transcripts exist, it isimpossible to even consider not conducting interviews or depositions of the individuals on whosestatements the DOJ purportedly relies.Undoubtedly, as an attorney you well understand that independent verification ofallegations against one's client is fundamental. No exception to this simple concept exists, andunfortunately, the conduct of the DOJ in this matter, as well as other serious matters affectingMaricopa County and the State of Arizona, compounds our unwillingness to even considermaking an exception to this precept of practice. Consideration of the facts on which the DOJrelies without verification is not an option.In addition, we do not agree with your concern that the MCSO will retaliateagainst anyone, including the currently unidentified interviewees or deputies, upon revelation of

their identities. Your concem is unwarranted, especially in light of the high profile nature of thisinvestigation and potential litigation. The watchful eyes of the United States Department ofJustice, the press, and perhaps a United States District Court Judge if litigation ensues, wouldreadily observe and swiftly address any allegedly feared retaliation. The bright spotlight thatthey provide should alleviate any reasonable amount of anxiety, regardless of how unfoundedthat anxiety might be.The DOJ Rigidly Interprets Title VI to Concealthe Bases of lts Findings

The DOJ's use of Title VI as both sword and shield in this matter frustrates theclaimed pu{pose of this investigation: ensuring that the MCSO operates constitutionally. WhileTtle W arguably does not compel the DOJ to revel the factual detal that the MCSO seeks,Ttle W certainly does not mndste tlie secrecy of the DOJ's ftndngs of allegeddscrmnton, ether. Even staunch critics of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO agree that theMCSO's request for the factual bases of the "findings" against it is reasonable.'7 See the following editorials attached collectively as Exhibit 2: "Editorial Opinion: How Strong is Feds' Case."Editorial. The Arizona Republic 6 January 2012; Robb, Robert "DOJ's Race Claims are, Alas, Weak." TheArizona Republic 2l December 2011. http:llwww.azcentrai.com/membersrBiogRobertR.obbli5i202; Montini, E.j.2754291.t


9/34

JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.February I,20I2Page 9

Indeed, the concepts offundamentlfarness and due process, as opposed to theconcealment of facts, should be absolutely psrsmount to the United Sttes Deprtment ofJustce. Factual revelation will certainly increase the ternpo of this mafrer, avoid unwantedlitigation, and transform it from the letter writing campaign that it has recently become back intothe productive exercise it was due to the MCSO's cooperation.In addition, the tutorial that you provided regarding the DOJ's conducting of aTitle VI investigation does not demonstrate our supposed incorrect reading of Title VI, DOJregulations or the guidelines contained in the DOJ's lnvestigation Procedures Manual-despiteyour suggestion otherwise. The citations to the DOJ's Manual in my January 4,2012letter are asaccurate as our inquiries and requests are valid. However, your recent written attempt to useDOJ guidelines to conceal the factual bases of the DOJ's findings was ineffective and it ignoredmy direct inquiries regarding this investigation.Furthermore, despite our request, you did not address whether your December 15,201 I letter was a Letter of Findings ("LOF") or an Investigative Report ("IR"). In any event, asthe DOJ has indicated that its investigation is incomplete, we assume that your December 15,2011 letter was a LOF. You did not confirm otherwise. So, our question remains unanswered.Does the DOJ intend to drft an IR n thefuture and, f so, does it intend to llow the MCSOto offer rebuttal evdence or poston statement pursuant to DOI gaidelnes? Unless youstate otherwise, we presume that the DOJ does not intend to allow the MCSO any opportunity torebut the DOJ's findings. That is patently unfair.Once again, we submit that the DOJ's failure to disclose evidence on which itrelies renders "rr.n *ttempt to rebut the evidence that the DOJ possesses an impossible task.8While the DOJ's own Manual also instructs DOJ investigators to test conclusions by consideringall possible rebuttal arguments by the recipient (here the MCSO) and the complainant, wequestion how this testing occurred without allowing the MCSO to present rebuttal arguments inlight of the DOJ's refusal to share the facts on which it relies. V/ithout providing the MCSO theopportunity to rebut the DOJ's findings, the DOJ's investigation appears to be a one-sidedexercise with a preconceived outcome, despite the DOJ's own guidelines.

, ?t rt

The DOJ's bald assertions that media accounts, unproven allegations in twosettled lawsuits and one pending lawsuit, MSO attomey attendance at only 53 of the well over400 interviews that the DOJ conducted, the August 2011 stipulated dismissal of the DOJ's actionagainst Sheriff Arpaio, and the MCSO's possession of the voluminous documentation that itprovided pursuant to the DOJ's requests, do not alone, or in the aggtegate, provide the MCSO"DOJ's Goal to Fix Arpaio's Office or Score Points?" The Arizona Republic 30 January 2072.http: lwww.azcentral. com,/members/blogJMontini/ I 5 3 806I ^SZe Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints Alleging Violations ofTitie Vi anci Other Non-Discrimination Sratutes (i998), p. i45 and i63.2754291.1


10/34

JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.February 1,2012Page 10and Sheriff Arpaio with adequate notice of the serious deficiencies that the DOJ alleges to exist,including the alleged pattern and practice of discriminatory conduct.

As we head toward our February 6,2012 meeting, we ask that the DOJ prepare toarticulate its findings and, of course, reconsider its unreasonable refusal to provide the factualbases of its findings pursuant to the MSO's reasonable request. To echo Attorney GeneralHolder's words, "We need to work together." On behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO and mypartners William R. Jones and John T. Masterson, we have been working and will continue towork with the DOJ and look forward to hosting our meeting with your staff and, perhaps youalso, on February 6,2012. Bear in mind, however, that the constructive dialogue of which theDOJ speaks is possible if the DOJ provides the facts and information on which it bases itsfindings-and if the dialogue that begins on February 6,2012 fails due to a lack of information,we stand ready to litigate.

the Firm

JJP/jancc: William Montgomery, Maricopa County AttorneyAvner Shapiro, DOJ Civil Rights Division

2754291.1


11/34

EXHIBIT 1


12/34

Wrrunu R. Jors, Jn.TET.EPH0NE: (602) 263.1714tnx: (602) 200-780,lE.MAtt: [email protected] T. MnsrrnsoruTETEpHoNE: 16021 263'7330trx: (6021 200-7846E.MAII.: JMSTERSON@JSHf IBM.COMJosptt J. Popottzo*TETEPH0NE: (6021 263.1741tex: (6021 200-7876E.MAtt: [email protected]'Arso ADMTTTD lN CoNNEcrlcur

AND WAsHtNcroN. D.C.

ffi#.irn,, 2901 llloRTtt Gel\rnnt AvrrrueSurrE 800Pfl oENtx, ABlzollA 850 1 2PHoNE: (6021 263.1700trx: (602) 651-7599WWW.JSHFIRM,COM

January 18,2012

Mr. Avner ShaPiroU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSpecial Litigation SectionPatrick HenrY Building601 D Street, NWWashington, D.C. 2057 9-0001

Re:Unitedstatesv.MaricopaCountySheriffsoffrceCV2Ol 1-1878-PHX-GMSDear Avner:

This letter and the enclosed CD containing 6006 pages of documentationconstitute the MCSO's supplemental response to the First Request for Documents andInformation. Specifically, ts response prvides you with the information and documents yourequested in response to Requests3,17,28,29, and34'As you are aware, you had requested this additional documentation andinformation during our Decemb et l, 20Il telephone conversation and email exchanges' Thedocuments we now provide were previously identified in the MCSO's July 28, 20llcomprehensive response to the First Request for Documents and lnformation and have beenavailable to you and the rest of your tam from the Department of Justice for review andreproduction since July 28, 20II. As we discussed and agreed on December 1,2011, it would bemuch less time ,onru*irrg and more cost effective if we located, copied and Bates labeled theserlnrrne.nfs2723074.r


13/34

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page2

The following supplemental responses and enclosed CD are the product of ourcontinued cooperation with ihis litte vl investigation. We have set forth each request to whichwe are providng a supplemental response, immediately followed by the MCSO's corresponding,supplemental response in table format for ease of reference.3. Identify and describe the function and reporting authority of all MCSOcomponents or govemment entities (internal or extemal) that investigate or review allegations ofmisconduct, including unconstitutional searches and seizures and discriminatory policing.Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the followingdocuments:

Internal Affairs Division Operational Manual, effective date 09/01 12010 (MC086399-08641s)17. Sample copies of all forms used by the MCSO to document its lawenforcement activities, inciuding but not limited to control of persons reports, force reportingforms, incident reports, arrest reports, field incident reports, patrol logs, radio logs' call logs'arrest logs, seizure..p.t, and logs, jail logs, desk sergeant logs and reports, and evidence logs'If any of the foregoing forms do not exist, please so state'Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the following

documents: u ttuarrsMl lGGl ING DIVISION FORMS BEG NO END NOarcnns Sunnlement MC086416 MC086416Narrative MC0864f7 MC086417lJr q-r^rlinn Fllrinmenf Loan Receiot MC086418 MC086418/Crime SuPPressionTotals MC086419 MC086419Arrest List MCo86420 MC086420Qinn-ln Flnsfer MC086421 MC086422Traininq Event Roster MCo86423 MCo86423ffiieisn National Notlfqllsn EeIm MC086424 MC086424MCSO 287(sl lncident Summary MC086425 MC086425Vehicle Release Authorization MCo86426 MC086426Tio Form MCo86427 MC086427Frearms Traininq Qualification Score Sh99 MCo86428 MC086430Safe Loq MC086431 MC086432Frrrn F MCo86433 MC086434ffi il overtimef ayqen1lqlqlm EeIm MC086435 MC086435racfirrnnaire MC086436 MCo86438ffirm MG086439 MCo86439fhar (Juesfions for Suoolement MC086440 MC086440Form 4 lnterview Questions MC086441 MCo86441P re=Booklnc !nfornnatlon Sheet MC086442 MCo86443

2723074.1


14/34

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 3

28. All current training cunicula for new recruits and current officers (i.e., in-service training), including roll-call training.Supplemental Response: See zttached CD-Rom, specifically the followingdocuments:

UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINING MATERIALS DATE BEG NO END NOHandwritten note regarding recruit lesson plans pulledfrom Box 164 (not applicable) MC086444 MC086444Bas Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan - FitTestinq 0110412010 MC086445 MC086455Basc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan and PowerPoint Presentation - lntroduction to Correctional HealthServices 08/03/2010 MC086456 MC086492tetntion Officers Lesson Plan and Power PointPresentation - Operations Journal I t/09/2009 MC086493 MC086516Basc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - Academy Organization 09/09/2010 MC086517 MC086518gasc t etention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan andPower Point Presentation' Glassification of lnmates 09/09/2010 MC086519 MC086535gasc Oetention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - Code of ConducUTruthfulness/lnternal Affairs 09/09/2010 MCo86536 MCo86537Recrut Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page - lnternalAffairs for Recruits 09/09/2010 MCo86538 MC086539Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan andPower Point Presentation - Contraband Control 09/09/2010 MC086540 MG086552Basc Detenton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan andPower Point Presentation - Correctional Law and theCriminal Justice System 09/09/2010 MC086553 MCo86573@care Providers With GPR,First Aid and AED Using the 2010 Guidelines for CPR andECC.20ll - Present, Gourse Gontent MCo86574 MCo86575gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan andPower Point Presentation - Grime Scene Preservation 09113t2010 MCo86576 MC086600gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan ' Crisislntervention & Stress and Anger Management MCo86601 MC086602gasc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Documentation Procedures 09t1312010 MCo86603 MC086605Basic Detention Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page -Emeroencv Procedures 09t1312010 MC086606 MCo86607Basc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPage - Employee Performance Appraisals, Discipline andGrievance Procedures 09/13/2010 MC086608 MCo86609gasic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Gase Studies in Ethics 0911312010 MC086610 MCo866ltgasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - lntroduction to Facility Security 09t15t2010 MC086612 MC0866r3n*^ notonfinn lfiaar cadamv I escon Plen and POWefE - V - g -- - - - v i - -' - i -'-- - --i _r- -- --_ : :.t 09115/2010 MC086614 MCo86630

2't23074.1


15/34

JONES, SKELTON {" HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 4

UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINNq NIA'IEBIALE DATE BEG NO END NOPoint Presentation - FingerprintingBasic Detention Officer Academy and Selected SwornPersonnel Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Fire Procedures 09/15/2010 MC086631 MG086632Basic Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan GoverPaoe - Fit Testinq 09/15/2010 MC086633 MCo86633gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Games lnmates Plav 09/15/2010 MC086634 MC086635Basic Academv Lesson Plan Gover Page - Gangs in Jg!! 09t1012010 MG086636 MCo86637gsc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson PIan CoverPaoe - Handlinq Abusive lnmates 09t2112010 MC086638 MC086639Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - Headcounts and Security Walks, Policy DH-!- 0912112010 MC086640 MC086640gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan andPower Point Presentation - Hostage PrqgCglgg- 09t2112010 MC086641 MC086663Bas'c Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - lncapacitation Weapons - OC Spray 09t2112010 MC086664 MC086666Detenton Recruit Lesson Plan - lnmate Discipline andGrievance Procedures 0912112010 MC086667 MCo86669gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - lnmate Lawsuits and lnmate Rights- 09t2712010 MC086670 MC086671Basic Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan GoverPaoe - lnmate Services/Programs 09t2712010 MC086672 MC086673gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaae - lnspection and Drill MC086674 MC086675Basc Detenton Officer Academy Lesson Plan and PowerPoint Presentation - lntake and Release Procedures forFacilitv Housing 0912712010 MC086676 MC086694gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - lntroduction to Correctional Health Services 08/03/2010 MC086695 MC086696@ Lesson Plan CoverPage-FieldTrainino Proqram. lnterpersonal Gommunication 09t2712010 MC086697 MC086698gasc Otention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - Jail DiversitY 09t2712010 MCo86699 MC086700K-9 MC086701 MC086701Basc Detention Officer Academy Lesson PIan CoverPaqe - Restraints Overview 09/,2712010 MC086702 MC086703Oetenton RecruiUDetention Officer Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Narcotics and Danqerous Drugs 10t04t2010 MG086704 MC086705Oetenton OfiCers Lesson Plan Cover Page - OperationsJournal;Sworn, Detention, Posse and Civilian Employees LessonPtan Gover Paqe - Mandatory OSHA Training- 10t0412010 MCo86706 MC086709gasic Oetention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Phvsical Gonditioning/Weightroom Orientation 10124t2010 MC086710 MC086711Unformed Officrs Lesson Plan Cover Page - PepperBallLauncher User Gertification 10t0412010 MG086712 MG086713Rcademy and Continuing Training Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - PREA - The Prison Rape Elimination of 2003 0313112011 MC086714 MC086715

- --L-La--Lesson lJan anq rower rolnr rresefltal(,fl' 4^r^Atr^tl,vrv-t-v rv irnea7,l a MG0867432723014.1


16/34

JONES, SKELTON 6l HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 5

UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINING MATERIALS DATE BEG NO END NOProfessionalism in the Workplacegasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Psvcholoqv of Survival 10t0412010 MC0867t4 MCo86745Bsic Detention Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page -Radio Procedures 10t0412010 MC086746 MCo86747gasc OCtention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - Report Writing 10t0512010 MC086748 MC086749Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaoe - Role of the Detention Officer 09/08/2010 MC086750 MC086751Lesson Plan Cover Page - Safe Bed Procedure 10/06/2010 MC086752 MC086753Bas'lc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Search Procedures 10/06/2010 MC086754 MC086755gasc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan GoverPaoe - Sions and Svmptoms of Mental lllness 10t0612010 MCo86756 MCo86757gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan GoverPaoe - Sudden tn-Gustodv Death Svndrome (SICDS) r0/06/2010 MC086758 MC086759Basc Detenton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - Suicide Prevention in Jail 10t07t2010 MC086760 MC086761Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaqe - Taser 0110012011 MCo86762 MC086762Basc Detent'ton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan CoverPaoe - Uniform Care and Maintenance 1010712010 MC086763 MC086763Basc Detenton Acdemy Recruits Lesson Plan GoverPaqe - Use of Force (CP'1) 1010712010 MCo86764 MCo8676529. All training materials, including initial and updated training materials,relating to the MoA with ICE. In addition, include materials related to local training, asdescribed in Section VII of the MOA.Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the followingdocuments:

LEGAL UPDATES DATE BEG Xq END]N8OCC - Arizona Lesal UPdate 02t0112009 MG086766 MC086769OCC - Arizona Leqal UPdate 0r/0112009 MC086770 MC086772OCC - Arizona Legal UPdate 12t0112008 MC086773 MC086776Memorandum and Attached DRO Field Procedures 04/03/2009 MC086777 MG086782Memoiandum Regarding 287(9) ProcessingGuidelines 12t1412007 MCo86783 MC086783.Slimrn g rtion and Customs Enforcement 287(9 )Quick Reference ProcessinL MC086784 MC086797Mmorandum Regarding Arizona AttemptConvictions o2r07t2008 MCo86798 MC086798ffig Reinstatement of Removal 02t1512008 MC086799 MC086799Case Law - Fernandez-Vargas v Gonzales 06t2212006 MC086800 MC086810Memrandum Regarding Mandatory Fingerprintingof ICE Detainees 0410712008 MC0868ll MC086811

2723074.1


17/34

JONES, SKELTON 6'{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 6

Memorandum Regarding Reporting andlnvestiqation of Claims to United States Citizenship 05t2312008 MC086812 MC086813Memorandum Regarding Superseding Guidance onReporting and lnvestigation of Claims to UnitedStates Citizenship 07t'1812008 MCo86814 MC086815Memorandum Regarding Superseding Guidance onReporting and lnvestigating Claims to United StatesGitizenshio 1t106/2008 MC086816 MCo86817mmgrat''on nd Gustoms Enforcement Office ofDetention and Removal Operations (lCE/DRO) FieldGuidance for the William Wilberforce TraffickingVictims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008ITVPRAI 04/06/2009 MC086818 MC08682234. Provide all documents relating to MCSO officer arrests, including but notlimited to, arrest reports, blotter, entries, incident reports, arrest warrants and supportingmaterials, booking logs, patrol logs, radio logs, videotapes and any other documents related toarrests by MCSO officer from January 1, 2008 to the present'supplemental Response: see attached cD-Rom, specifcally the followingdocuments:

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-019230, District I 0210112009 MC086823 MC08683609-019317. District I 02t0112009 Mco86837 MC08684909-019424, District 1 02t0112009 MC086850 MC08686009-019431. District I 0210112009 MC086861 MC08688909-019530, District I 0210112009 MCo86890 MC08689709-019618, District I 02t0112009 MC086898 MC08690209-019690, District 1 02t0112009 MC086903 MCo8693009-019718. District I 02t0212009 MC086931 MC08694209-019764, District 1 0210212009 MC086943 MC08694809-019830. District I 02t0212009 MCo86949 MCo8695509-020100. District 1 02t0212009 MC086956 MC08696109-020206, District I 0210212009 MC086962 MCo8696909-020254. District I o2t0212009 MC086970 MC08698109-020313, District I 0210312007 MC086982 MC08698709-020466. District I 02t0312009 MCo86988 MCo8699809-020463. District I 02/03/2009 MC086999 MC08701509-020542. District I 02/03/2009 MC087016 MC08702109-020565. District I 02t0312009 MCo87022 MC08702909-020583. District I 02r03/2009 MC087030 MC08704509-020614, District I 02/03/2009 MCo87046 MC08705109-020724. District f 02/03/2009 MC087052 MC0870650S-020726. District I 0210312009 MG087066 MC08706609-020807. District I 02/03/2009 MCo87067 MC08707309-020860, District I 02/03/2009 MG087074 MG087076Dlstrict I 02r03/2009 MC087077 MC087087

2723074.1


18/34

JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P'L'C'January 18,2012PageT

-INC ID ENT RE PORT N O'DISTRIGT DATE BEG NO END NO09-020967. District I 0210312009 MC087088 MC08708809-020978, District I 02t0412009 MCo87089 MC08709309-020998, District I 0210412009 MCo87094 MC08709709-021153, District I 0210412009 MC087098 MC087ll009-021190, District I 0210412009 MC087l I I MC087ll609-021285, District I 0210412009 MC087ll7 MC08712109-021396. District I 0210412009 lt[i0,087122 MC08712609-021343, District I 0210412009 MC087127 MC087196oi-azlfia, District I 02t0412009 MG087197 MC08720909-021502, District I 0210412009 MC087210 MC08721409-021530. District I 02t0412009 MC087215 MC08721909-021580, District I 0210412009 MG087220 MCo87235Og-0ZtSt. District 1 02r05/2009 MCo87236 MCo8725909-021635, District I 0210412009 MC087260 MCo87268

-09-021658. District I 0210512009 MCo87269 MC08727209-021695. District I 0210512009 MC087273 MC0872890g-0ZlZ3O, District I 02/05/2009 MC087290 MC087294OgZtggg. District 1 0210512009 MC087295 MC08729809-022002, District I 02r05/2009 MCo87299 MC08731509-022002. District I 02/05/2009 MC087316 MC08733209-022068, District I 02/05/2009 MCo87333 MCo8733609-022132. District I 02/05/2009 MC087337 MCo87360os-O22263. District 1 0210612009 MCo87361 MC08737109-022382, District I 02/06/2009 MCo87372 MC08737509-022450, District I 02/06/2009 MC087376 MC087381O9-022484, District I 02/06/2009 MC087382 MC087397OSOZZSS. District I 02/06/2009 MCo87398 MC08740009-022549, District I 02/06/2009 MCo87401 MC08740309-017068. District I 02/06/2009 MGo87404 MC087427os-O22703. District I 02/06/2009 MC087428 MCo87432OS-OZZI9. District I 02/0612009 MCo87433 MC08744409-022743, District I 02/06/2009 MC087445 MCo8745609-022765. District I 02/06/2009 MC087457 MC08746209-022796. District I 02/06/2009 MC087463 MC08746709-022823. District I 02/06/2009 MC087468 MCo8748109-022939. District I 0210712009 MC087482 MC087492-09-023020.

District I 0210712009 MCo87493 MCo8750409-023042. District I 0210712009 MC087505 MC0875ll09-023221. District I 0210712009 MC087512 MCo8752509-023316, District I 0210712009 MC087526 MCo87569Og-OZ3ggS, District I 0210712009 MC087570 MG08758209-023398. District I 0210712009 MC087583 MG08760809-023493. District I 0210712009 MC087609 MC08761709-023594. District I 02/08/2009 MC087618 MC08762009-023606. District I 02/0812009 MCo87621 MC08762309-023633. District I 02/08/2009 MC087624 MCo8765509-023881, District I 0210812009 MGo87656 MCo87661-1 -.4^ ! n:--:- rauv-uv+vr lJlllt l' rlrfio ttflv -t vet -- -+ tJ!G08?662 Me087673

2723074.1


19/34

JONES, SKELTON 6{, HOCHULI, P.L.C'January 18,2012Page I

INCDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-023988, District 1 02/08/2009 MC087674 MCo8767809-024089. District I 02/09/2009 MCo87679 MCo8769209-024147, District I 02r09/2009 MC087693 MC08769609-024292. District I 02/09/2009 MC087697 MC08771009-024349, District I 02/09t2009 MC0877ll MC08772109-024360. District I 02/09/2009 MC087722 MCo8773909-024507, District I 0210212009 MC087740 MC08774609-024511. District I 02r09/2009 MC087747 MC08775109-023628, District I 02/08/2009 MCo87752 MC08775809-023640. District I 02/08/2009 MC087759 MCo8776509-024696, District I 0211012009 MC087766 MCo8778409-024750, District I 0211012009 MC087785 MC08778809-024803, District I 02t1012009 MCo87789 MC08779409-024809. District I 0211012009 MC087795 MC08780309-024911, District I o211012009 MCo87804 MC08781009-025007. District I 0211012009 MC0878ll MC08781709-025037, District 1 02r10t2009 MC087818 MC087819os-o2sozg. District I 0211012009 MC087820 MCo8783909-025085, District I 0211012009 MC087840 MCo8784609-025098, District I o2t1012009 MCo87847 MCo8785209-025231, District I 02t1012009 MC087853 MCo8786609-025240, District I 0211012009 MCo87867 MC08786709-025247, District I 0211012009 MG087868 MCo878760g-0ZS3ee, District 1 ozt1'112009 MCo87877 MCo87880OSO2SZS. District I 02t1112009 MCo8788t MCo8788409-025447, District I 0211112009 MC087885 MC08789009-025504. District I 02111/,2009 MC087891 MC08789609-025604. District I o2t1112009 MCo87897 MC08790009-025638. District I 02t1112009 MCo87901 MCo8790709-025677, District I 02111t2009 MC087908 MC087914Og-OZSegZ, District I ozt1112009 MC087915 MCo8792509-025764. District 1 0211112009 MCo87926 MCo8792809-025793, District I o2t1112009 MC087929 MC08793009-025891, District I 0211112009 MC087931 MC08794209-025947, District 1 ozt1112009 MCo87943 MCo8796609-025989, District I 02t1112009 MCo87967 MCo8796909-025954, District I o2t1112009 MC087970 MC08797609-025969. District I 0211112009 MC087977 MC08798009-025980, District I 0211212009 MCo87981 MC08798809-026149, District I 0211212009 MCo87989 MCo8799209-026205. District 1 02t1212009 MC087993 MC08800409-026404. District I 0211212009 MCo88005 MCo8800809-026456. District I 02t1212009 MC088009 MC088015Og-OZSe. District I ozt1212009 MC088016 MC08802109-026514, District I 02t1212009 MC088022 MCo8802409-026536. District I 02t1112009 MC088025 MCo8804009-026616, District 1 02r1312009 MC088041 MCo88044^tt/,.r.It^^o1t avt vvv f,lt1nennr.q MC088049

2723074.1


20/34

JONES, SKELTON 6{- HOCHULI, P'L'C'January 18,2012Page 9

IIEJT'FNT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-026652, District I 0211312009 MCo88050 MC08806609-026717, District I 02t1312009 MC088067 MC08810409-027107, District I 02t1312009 MC088105 MC08810909-027115. District I 0211312009 MC088ll0 MC088ll609-027122, District I 02t1312009 MC088117 MC08812109-027201. District I 02t1312009 MC088122 MC08812709-027327, District I 0211312009 MC088128 MC08813409-027313, District I 0211312009 MC088135 MCo8813609-027464, District I 0211912009 MC088137 MCo8817709-027866, District I o2t1412009 MC088178 MCo8818509-0ZZg9, District I 0211312009 MC088186 MCo8820009-027979. District I 0211412009 MC088201 MCo8821709-028132, District I 02114/,200s MC088218 I'1iC088222ogozt. District I 0211512009 MC088223 MCo8822709-028069, District 1 0211412009 MC088228 MCo8824609-028430. District 1 0211512009 MC088247 MCo8826809-028432. District I 0211512009 MC088269 MC08827409-028458, District I 0211512009 MC088275 MCo8831909-028633, District I ozt1512009 MC088320 MCo88336O+OZAStS. District I 0211512009 MC088337 MCo8834009-028891, District I o211512009 MC088341 MCo88354Og-OZgf SZ, District I 02t1612009 [nCOsASSs I MC08835909-029156, District 1 02I16/2009 MC088360 MCo88369O9-OZgg0 Dstrict I 0211612009 MC088370 MCo88375os-029S9. District I 0211612009 MC088376 MC08838909-029418, District I 02/16/2009 MG088390 MC088402ffi l02r17r20oe MC088403 MCo8840909-029602, District I 0211712009 MC088410 MC088416og-0zgezz. District 1 0211712009 MC088417 MC08842209-029900, District I 0211712009 MCo88423 MC088427OS-OOZ. District I 0211812009 MCo88428 MC08844109-030273, District I 0211812009 MCo88442 MCo88448Og-OgOZgO. District I 0211812009 MC088449 MCo8845209-030352, District 1 0211812009 MCo88453 MCo88455og-osogsg, District 1 0210412009 MC088456 MCo8846309-030537, District I 0211812009 MC088464 MCo8847209-030t-l3, District I 02t1912009 MC088473 MC08847809-030629. District I 0211912009 MC088479 MCo8848909-030625, District I 02t1912009 MC088490 MCo88501os-0so6sg. District I 02fi912009 MC088502 MC08850609{30643, Dstrict I 02r1912009 MC088507 MCo88519og430tze. District I 0211912009 MCo88520 MCo8852509-030912, District 1 0211912009 MC088526 MC088568OggOgtZ. District I 0211912009 MCo88569 MCo8857509-030952. District I 0211912009 MC088576 MC088581OggOgZS. District I 02/19/2009 Meo88582 MGo8860f09-030982. District I ozt1912009 MC088602 MC088607vv-vgvgvvr esr rv ' ^r,l rtrOv t a et 4999 f,rnneQAOR !u!c0EE6'!4

27230'4.r


21/34

JONES, SKELTON 6'{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 10

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-031114. District 1 0211912009 MCo88615 MCo8862109-031142, District 1 02t19r2009 MC088622 MC08862509-031182. District I 01/30/2009 MC088626 MC08864309-031266, District 1 02t20t2009 MC088644 MC08864809-031290. District I 02t20t2009 MC088649 MC08865609-031344, District I 02t2012009 MC088657 MCo8866109-031323. District I 02t20t2009 MC088662 MC08866609-031749, District I 02t20t2009 MC088667 MCo8867209-031763. District I 0212012009 MCo88673 MG08868809-031846, District I o2t20t2009 MCo88689 MCo8869909-031923. District I 0212112009 MCo88700 MC08870909-031930, District 1 o2t2'1t2009 MC088710 MC08873109-031956. District 1 02t21t2009 MC088732 MC08875209-031991, District I 02t2112009 MCo88753 MC08876109-032061. District 1 0212112009 MC088762 MC08877209-032196, District 1 0212112009 MC088773 MCo8877709-032294. District I 0212112009 MC088778 MC08878709-032314. District 1 02t2112009 MCo88788 MC08879209-032370, District I 02t2112009 MC088793 MC08881809-032454. District I 0212112009 MC088819 MCo8882209-032470, District I o2t2'112009 MC088823 MC08883209-032528. District I 02t2112009 MC088833 MCo8884309-032543, District 1 02t21t2009 MC088844 MC08884509-032563. District 1 0212112009 MG088846 MC08886009-032606. District I 02t2112009 MC088861 MC08886609-032656, District I 02t2212009 MC088867 MC08887609-032676. District 1 0212212009 MC088877 MC08888309-032714, District I o2t22t2009 MG088884 MC08890009-032807. District I 0212212009 MC088901 MC08890909-032945. District 1 o212212009 MC088910 MC08892109-032996. District I 0212212009 MC088922 MC08892809-033020, District I 0212212009 MCo88929 MC08894609-033139. District I 0212212009 MC088947 MCo8894909-033177, District I ozt2212009 MC088950 MC08895509-033545. District I 02t2312009 MC088956 MCo8897809-033697, District 1 ozt2312009 MC088979 MC08898309-033808. District I 02t2312009 MG088984 MCo8898909-033809, District I o212312009 MC088990 MC08899409-033820. District I 0212312009 MC088995 MCo8900109-033950, District I 0212312009 MC089002 MC08901009-033956. District I 02t2412009 MC089011 MC08901709-034012, District I 02t2412009 MC089018 MG08902209-034072, District I 02t24t2009 MC089023 MC08903209-024507, District I 02t2512009 MC089033 MCo8904809-031468. District I 0212412009 MG089049 MC08905709-034558, District I 02t2412009 MC089058 MC08906609-034565, District 1 02t24r2009 MC089067 MC089082 ^t EE h:-4-:^6 , ^rl.rAltllllo 4! 4-a 4V Vt l'nnnqnR? renRqnRT

27230't4.1


22/34

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 1l

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-034640. District I 02124t2009 MC089088 MC08910809-034654. District I 0212412009 MC089109 MC089ll309-034698. District 1 0210412009 MCo89114 MC08911709-034789. District I 0212512009 MC0891 l8 MG08912409-035116, District I 0212s12009 MC089125 MC08928109-035380. District I 02t2612009 MC089282 MC08928709-035385, District I 02t2612009 MC089288 MC08929909-035416. District I 02t26t2009 MC089300 MC08932609-035428. District 1 0212612009 MC089327 MC08935109-035768. District I 0311112009 MC089352 MC08935809-035782, District I 0212612009 MCo89359 MC08936909-035856, District I 0212712009 MC089370 MC08939209-036038, District I 0212712009 MC089393 MC08939609-036052, District I 02t2712009 MCo89397 MC08940909-036087, District I 02t2712009 MC089410 MC08941509-036504. District I 0212712009 MG0894{6 Mc08942009-036504. District I 02t2712009 MC089421 MC08942509'036506. District I 0212712009 MCo89426 MCo8946409-036617, District I 0212712009 MC089465 MC08947909-036638, District I 0212712009 MC089480 MC08949109-036743, District I 0212712009 MC089492 MC08951409-036745, District { 0212712009 MCo89515 MC08951909-036850, District I 02t2812009 MC089520 MCo8952609-036920. District I 02t2812009 MC089527 MC08955309-037057, District I 0212812009 MCo89554 MC08955809-037089, District I 02t2812009 MC089559 MCo8956209-037208. District I 0212812009 MC089563 MC08957409-037288, District I o212812009 MC089575 MC08957809-037342, District I 0212812009 MC089579 MC089s8809-037398, District I 02t2812009 MC089589 MC08959209-037415. District I 02t2812009 MC089593 MC08959409-021606, District 2 02t0412009 MCo89595 MCo8960609-021668, District 2 02/05/2009 MC089607 MCo896ll09-021786, District 2 02/05/2009 MC089612 MCo8961409-021798. District 2 02t0512009 MC089615 MC08961609-021883, District 2 02t0512009 MC089617 MC08962809-021889. District 2 02t0512009 MC089629 MCo8966109-021988, District 2 02/05/2009 MCo89662 MCo8967409-022110, District 2 02/05/2009 MC089675 MC08967609-022277. District 2 02/06/2009 MC089677 MC08969409-022281, District 2 02/06/2009 MC089695 MC08969609-022317. District 2 02/06/2009 MCo89697 MC08970009-022343, District 2 02/0612009 MC089701 MC08971609-022571. District 2 02/06/2009 MCo89717 MC08971909-022862. District 2 02/06/2009 MC089720 MC08974209-022938. District 2 02t0712009 MC089743 MCo8976209-023044. District 2 o2t0712009 MCo89763 MCo89764^arr^7rt^oLtvt tLvg! irfiaoTaErrvvvv. vv [rrnRqTAA

27230't4.1


23/34

JONES, SKELTON 6L HOCHULI, P'L'C'January L8,2012Page 12

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-023276. District 2 02t0712009 MCo89767 MCo8976909-023380. District 2 02t0712009 MCo89770 MC08977109-023506. District 2 02t0712009 MC089772 MC08983209-023524, District 2 02t0712009 MCo89833 MCo8983509-023600. District 2 02/08/2009 MC089836 MC08985009-023610. District 2 02/08/2009 MCo89851 MC08986409-023636, District 2 02/09/2009 MC089865 MC08986709-023769. District 2 02/0812009 MCo89868 MC08987409-023801, District 2 02/08/2009 MCo89875 MGo8987709-024005. District 2 02/08/2009 MC089878 MCo8988009-024075, District 2 02/09/2009 MC089881 MC08988309-024081. District 2 02/09/2009 MC089884 Mc08988609-024378. District 2 02109r2009 MCo89887 MCo8990009-024626, District 2 02/09/2009 MC089901 MCo8990209-024637, District 2 02/09/2009 MC089903 MC089915Og-OZSOeg, District 2 02/10/2009 MC089916 MC08993309-025176, District 2 0211012009 MG089934 MC08994509-025519, District 2 02t1112009 MGo89946 MG08995609-025754, District 2 0211112009 MC089957 MC089962g-ozs88l, District 2 0211112009 MGo89963 MCo8997909-026278. District 2 02t1212009 MC089980 MCo8998309-026324. District 2 0211212009 MC089984 MCo8999209-026427, District 2 0211212009 MCo89993 MC09005409-026137, District 2 0211212009 MC090055 MC09005609-026646. District 2 0211312009 MCo90057 MC09005809-026508. District 2 0211212009 MC090059 MC09006209-026560, District 2 0211212009 MC090063 MC09008509-026613, District 2 0211312009 MC090086 MCo9009709-026871, District 2 02t1312009 MC090098 MC09010009-026894. District 2 0211312009 MC090l0l MG09010809-027147, District 2 0211312009 MC090109 MC090l l5OS.O2fieg. District 2 02r131200s MC090116 MC09011709-027355, District 2 0211312009 MC090ll8 MC09012109-027461. District 2 0211412009 MC090122 MC09012409-027608, District 2 0211412009 MC090125 MC09012709-027731, District 2 0211412009 MC090128 MC09013009-027975, District 2 0211412009 MC090l3l MC090133OSOZSO6O. District 2 0211412009 MC090134 MC09013909-028140, District 2 0211412009 MC090140 MC09014409-028333. District 2 0211412009 MG090145 MGo9014609-028378. District 2 02t1512009 MC090147 MC090148-09-028381. District 2 0211512009 MCo90149 MC09019009-028386. District 2 02t1512009 MC090191 MC09019309-028419, District 2 o2t1512009 MC090194 MC09019609-028528, District 2 0211512009 MC090197 MC09019809-028577, District 2 02t1612009 MC090199 MG09022509-028579. District 2 0211512009 MCo90226 MCo90228UV-uo(,gvt lJlll IU3 ^rl Er,l^lo rrf-nontto r,lnnqt

2723074.1


24/34

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 13

!NCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-028742. District 2 02t1512009 MC090244 MC09024609-028910, District 2 02t1612009 MGo90247 MC09024909-028911, District 2 02t2312009 MC090250 MC09028409-029353. District 2 02t1612009 MC090285 MC09030509-029081, District 2 0211612009 MC090306 MC09030809-029353. District 2 0211612009 MC090309 MC09033609-029362, District 2 02t1612009 MC090337 MC09033809-029386. District 2 02t1612009 MC090339 MC09034109-029420, District 2 02t1612009 MC090342 MC09035509-029446. District 2 02r1712009 MC090356 MG09035809-029452, District 2 02t1712009 MC090359 MC09036209-029511. District 2 0211712009 MCo90363 MC09036509-029583, District 2 02t1712009 MC090366 MC09037509-029764. District 2 0211812009 MC090376 MC09039009-029965, District 2 0211712009 MC090391 MC09039309-030031, District 2 0211812009 MC090394 MC09039609-030189, District 2 02t1812009 MC090397 MC09040209-030442, District 2 0211812009 MCo90403 MC0904ll09-030555, District 2 02t1812009 MC090412 MC09041909-030637, District 2 02119t2009 MC090420 MC09042909-030645. District 2 0211912009 MC090430 MC09044509-030864, District 2 0211912009 MC090446 MC09045509-031204. District 2 0211912009 MC090456 MCo9045709-031233, District 2 02t1912009 MC090458 MC09045909-031248. District 2 02119t2009 MC090460 MG09047209-031277, District 2 0212012009 MC090473 MC09047509-031531, District 2 0212012009 MCo90476 MCo9048109-031591, District 2 02t2012009 MCo90482 MC09048709-031916, District 2 0212012009 MC090488 MC09049009-031949. District 2 02t2112009 MC090491 MCo9050409-032033. District 2 0212112009 MCo90505 MC09050709-032104. District 2 0212112009 MC090508 MC09050909-032390. District 2 02t21t2009 MC090510 MC09051909-032394. District 2 0212112009 MC090520 MC09052209-032399, District 2 0212112009 MC090523 MC09052509-032626. District 2 0212112009 MC090526 MC09053509-032638, District 2 02t2112009 MG090536 MCo9053709-032643, District 2 0212212009 MC090538 MC09057609-032927, District 2 0212212009 MC090577 MC09058309-032944, District 2 02t2212009 MC090584 MC09058709-033141, District 2 02t23t2009 MC090588 MC09061209-033174, District 2 02122t2009 MC090613 MC09061509-033272. District 2 0212312009 MC090616 MC09061809-033290, District 2 02123t2009 MC090619 MG09062409-033300. District 2 0212312009 MC090625 MC09062609-033402. District 2 0212312099 MC090627 MC09062909-033422. District 2 0212312009 MC090630 MC090639Vt-VW99VVt Yastl lv - ^r1t'l^^ rr^oftrll irnonAQ?

2723074.1


25/34

JONES, SKELTON &. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 14

INGIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-033851, District 2 021231200s MC090684 MC09068609-033908, District 2 02t23t2009 MC090687 MC09068809-033982. District 2 02t24t2009 MCo90689 MCo9070209-034001. District 2 0212412009 MC090703 MC09070509-034024. District 2 0212412009 MC090706 MC0907r809-034308. District 2 02t24t2009 MC0907r9 MCo9072209-034381. District 2 0212412009 MC090723 MC09072409-034675, District 2 0212512009 MCo90725 MCo9072709-034676. District 2 02t25t2009 MC090728 MC09073009-034716, District 2 02t2512009 MC090731 MCo9073309-034724, District 2 02t2512009 MCo90734 MCo9073809-034735, District 2 02t2512009 MC090739 MC09074909-034737, District 2 02t2512009 MC090750 MCo9075809-034738, District 2 02t25t2009 MC090759 MCo9076609-034870. District 2 02t2512009 MC090767 MC09077009-034912, District 2 o212512009 MCo90771 MCo9077509-034998. District 2 02t2s12009 MC090776 MC09077709-035010. District 2 0212512009 MC090778 MC09078009-035157. District 2 0212512009 MC090781 MC09078609-035173. District 2 02t2512009 MCo90787 MCo9080609-035369, District 2 02t2612009 MC090807 MC09081809-035420. District 2 0212612009 MC090819 MC09083009-035488, District 2 02t26t2009 MCo90831 MCo9083209-035534. District 2 0212612009 MC090833 MC09083609-035639, District 2 02t26t2009 MC090837 MC09083809-035884. District 2 02t2612009 MCo90839 MC09085809-036057, District 2 02t28t2009 MC090859 MCo9092209-036070. District 2 0212712009 MCo90923 MC09095009-036257, District 2 02t2712009 MC090951 MC09095309-036391. District 2 02t2712009 MC090954 MCo9095509-036443, District 2 02t2712009 MCo90956 MC09095909-036578. District 2 0212712009 MC090960 MC09096609-036661. District 2 03/05/2009 MC090967 MC09099109-036765. District 2 0212712009 MCo90992 MC09100509-036991. District 2 02128t2009 MC091006 MG09105709-037192, District 2 03/01/2009 MC091058 MC09106909-037284. District 2 02t2812009 MC091070 MCo9108809-037316. District 2 02t28t2009 MC091089 MC09109009-037396. District 2 0212812009 MG09t09l MC09109309-037487, District 2 02t2812009 MC091094 MC09109509-037604. District 2 02t2812009 MC091096 MC09ll0009-019241, District 6 0210112009 MC091101 MC09ll0409-019428. District 6 02t01t2009 MC091105 MC09ll0809-019432, District 6 ozt01t2009 MC09ll09 MC09112009-019726, District 6 02t01t2009 MC09l l2l MC09ll3409-020378, District 6 02/03/2009 MC09ll35 MC09115809-020724, District 6 02t03r2009 MC09ll59 MC09ll63^^ ^^^^^ :-4-:-4 ^4t^At4^^ ^t\^Otl tl C.A itflno4 4 ae

2723074.t


26/34

JONES, SKELTON &" HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 15

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE BEG NO END NO09-021149, District 6 01t07t2009 MC091169 MC09,l19209-021153. District 6 0210412009 MC09lr93 MC09120709-021276, District 6 ozt0412009 MC091208 MC09122009-021244, District 6 0210412009 MC091221 MC09123209-021371. District 6 0210412009 MC091233 MCo9123909-021455, District 6 02t0412009 MCo91240 MC09l27l09-021492, District 6 02t14t2009 MC091272 MC09r33509-021547, District 6 0210412009 MC091336 MC09134009-021616. District 6 02/05/2009 MC091341 MC09135609-021936, District 6 0210512009 MC091357 MCo9136809-021952. District 6 02/05/2009 MCo91369 MC09138409-021970, District 6 02/05/2009 MC091385 MC09139809-022207. District 6 02/05/2009 MC091399 MC09140209-022208. District 6 02/06/2009 MC091403 MC09140609-022525, District 6 02/06/2009 MC091407 MC09142509-022679. District 6 02t0612009 MC091426 MC09144109-022857, District 6 0210712009 MC091442 MC09145209-022858. District 6 02/06/2009 MC091453 MC09148409-023602, District 6 02/08/2009 MCo91485 MC09150509-023753. District 6 02/08/2009 MCo91506 MC09l51309-023831, District 6 02/08/2009 MG09l5l4 MC09152809-023835. District 6 02t0812009 MC091529 MC09153609-024822. District 6 02t1012009 MC091537 MC09156009-025175. District 6 0211012009 MC09l56l MC09156909-025493, District 6 0211012009 MC091570 MC09159009-025757. District 6 0211112009 MC09l59{ MC09159609-025920, District 6 ozt1112009 MC091597 MG09r60209-025939, District 6 02t1112009 MCo91603 MG09160609-025947, District 6 02t1112009 MC091607 MC09163209-026161. District 6 0211212009 MC091633 MC09165009-026209. District 6 ozt12t2009 MC09t65l MC09168309-026271, District 6 02r1212009 MC091684 MC09169709-026304. District 6 02t1212009 MC091698 MC09171509-026385, District 6 0211212009 MCo91716 MC09174709-026539. District 6 0211112009 MC091748 MC09175009-026642, District 6 02113t2009 MC091751 MC09176009-027020. District 6 0112812009 MCo91761 MC09176509-027412, District 6 02t1412009 MCo91766 MC09178809-027436, District 6 02t1412009 MC091789 MC09180709-027820, District 6 02t1412009 MC091808 MC09181509-028406. District 6 0211512009 MC091816 MC09r83809-028663, District 6 02t15t2009 MC091839 MC09184509-028675. District 6 02t1512009 MC091846 MC09184909-028681, District 6 02t15t2009 MC091850 MC09f 85509-028942, District 6 02t1612009 MC091856 MC09187809-028970. District 6 02t16t2009 MC091879 MG09188509-029487, District 6 02t17t2009 MC091886 MC091897^ rt ,ofiat rl^fl,1 QQlravvg vvv itl1nq4 qnq

2723074.r


27/34

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 16

I N CIDE NT REPO R'LN8I!SIB!C'[ DATE BEG NO END NO09-030097, District 6 02t18t2009 MC091910 MC09l9l609-030174. District 6 0211812009 MC09l9l7 MC09191909-030347, District 6 02r18t2009 MC091920 MC09194609-030358. District 6 0211812009 MC091947 MC09196409-030993. District 6 02t1912009 MC091965 MC09197009-03{211. District 6 02t1912009 MC09'1971 MC09198509-031295, District 6 02n91200s MC091986 MGo9199409-031493. District 6 0212012009 MG091995 MCo9200109-031935, District 6 o2t2112009 MC092002 MC09201609-031952. District 6 0212112009 MC092017 MC09204209-031977, District 6 0212112009 MC092043 MC09205909-032680. District 6 02t2212009 MCo92060 MG09207309-032750, District 6 0212212009 MC092074 MCo92099O+OSSZZ. District 6 0212312009 MC092100 MC092tl309-033819, District 6 02t2312009 MC092ll4 MC092ll909-033959. District 6 0212412009 MC092120 MC09213809-034060, District 6 0212412009 MC092139 MC09214309-034136. District 6 01109/2009 MC092144 MC09214909-034357, District 6 0212412009 MCo92150 MC09217409-034373. District 6 o212412009 MCo92175 MC09217709-034656. District 6 0212412009 MC092178 MC09218309-034701, District 6 0212512009 MC092184 MC09220009-034723, District 6 02t2512009 MC092201 c09221409-034820, District 6 02125t2009 MC092215 MC092221F-os5zzs, District 6 0212512009 MC092222 MC09222709-035225, District 6 0212512009 MCo92228 MCo9224209-035365. District 6 0212612009 MC092243 MC09225609-035416, District 6 02126t2009 MC092257 MCo9227909-035487. District 6 0212612009 MC092280 MCo9230309-036097, District 6 0212712009 MC092304 MC092316-09-036331. District 6 o2t2712009 MG092317 MG09232409-036375, District 6 0212712009 MC092325 MC09235209-036812. District 6 0212812009 MC092353 MC09236909-036874, District 6 0212812009 MC092370 MC09238109-036878. District 6 o212812009 MG092382 MC09239009-036914, District 6 0212812009 MCo92391 MC09239609-037125, District 6 0212712009 MC092397 MG092422

The documents and information contained in this letter are fully responsive to therequests you made in our telephone conversation of December 1, 20tI and the emails we"*hung" on that same date. If you disagree, please provide written notification to meimmediately identifying any perceived def,rciency'

2723074-t


28/34

JONES, SKELTON l HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 18,2012Page 17

Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. Please call with anyquestions or comments.

JJPisssEnclosurescc: Amin Aminfar, Esq.Sergio Perez, Esq.Kavitha Sreeharsha, Esq.

27230'14.1


29/34

EXHIBIT 2


30/34

ffiffiDIT{ffiffiffiruS PAGE 86 .,THE ARIZONA REPUBLICOPINIONS.AZCENTRAL.COMTHE ARIZONA REPUBLICounded 1890 D A Gannett nespper D lncorporting The Phnixcaette

JOHN. ZIDICHC@rdh!ilhqEdtrals represent the opnon ofthe newspaper, whosEditoral Eoardconssts of John Zdch. Joanna Allhands. steve EensrL Phl Boas,Jenhifer Dokes, Cndy Hernandez" Kathleen lngley, Rohrt Leger,

Randy Lovelf Doug MacEachein, Laura McBride, Robrt Robb,Linda Valdez and Ken Western

EUGENE C. PULLIA.M1889.1975 r Publkhq 19'16-1975

HE ISSUE: JUSTICE DEPT. vS. JOE ARPAIOHOIVSTROI\GISF'EDS'CASE?T 'tr 7 ith his patently politicalf /\/ "crime-suppressionV Y sweeps,"MaricopaCoun-ty Sheriff Joe.{rpaio has mockedhuman rights; trampled, oxlike,over at least two provisions of theU.S. Constitution; wasted scarcecounty resources; and helpedmke Arizona the focus of world-wide derision.Butwithhisprogramidehtify-ing suspected illegal immigrantsin county jails, an operation con-duted under federal authority,Arpaio has done none of thosethings.In fact, the program sinc itsinception in 2007 has identifiedmore than 44,000 people in thiscountry illegaliy. Conducted byauthority of U,S. ImmigrationCustoms.Enforcemnt's 287(g)jail model agreement, the Mar-icopa County operation has beenthe inost succesful jail-interdic-tion effort in the nation. Far and.away.Yet almost furmediately aftertheU.S. Justice Department lev-led its racial-profilig allga-tions against Arpaib in December,Janet Napolitano, scrtary ofHomeland Security, ended Ar-paio's 287(g) authority, too.' The DHS secretary and formerArizona governor cited no abusesirt her.agency's partnership withArpaio as it pplied to the jailprogram. She simply cited.theDee. 15 complaint, which numer-ated serious concerns witJr A-paio's sweeps, as well as susect-ed human-rights abuses in hisjails.But neitherthe Justice Depart-ment nor Napolitao addressedany issues directly related toArpaio's administration of the287(9) agreement in the jils. Ifthere is a problem with that pio-eram, wht is it?Napolitano's decision, coupled

with the Justice Department'sbehavior since Assistant AttorneyGeneral Thomas Peez released -his 22-page complaint, is begin-ing to raise.some concerns abouthow strong the federal case

against Arpaio really is.On Wednesday, Arpaio's law-yers rsponded tq. the.Justiceletter with a 37-page demand fordetails about the allegations citedb Perez.A lot of it is bluster and law-yerly posturing, of course. Butmuch of what the lawyers seekare perfectly legitimate questionsthat we would like answered. .For examle, what are the dataunderlying the federal claim. thatArpaio's deputies have raciallyprofiled Hispanics?Perez is not mking somevague, "I.know it when I see it"argumeht. He claims that a statis-tical Study commissioned by Jus-tice found that Arpaio's dputiesstopped Latino drivprs "four tonine times" as ofteri as n


31/34

Opinions. TypeSzo:AAA. @r*. @l e..r. @l rostpopul",aC,[-l

OO'" race clams are, atas, weakby Robe'f Rohb, columnist - Dec. 21, 2011 12:00 AMThe Azona Republic

;;".;;.; i sign up to see wht vour friends remmend'.'"'-- '.---'"" ---- If---!: .fu*g t9.

The most sensational allegation the Department of Justce has leveled against SheriffJoe Arpaio's office is that Latinos are four to nine times more lkely to be subject totraffic stops than similarly situated non-Latino drivers.It is also the most important allegation. lt appears to provide hard evidence n support ofthe general claim that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is guilty of systemic racialdiscrimination.At this pont, however, the presumption has to be that the allegation is also based oniunk science, since the DOJ refuses to release the "statistical study" on which t isbased.The reason for that presumpton, paradoxcally, is the DOJ's findings letter itself.Another allegation is that the sheriffs office does not keep sufficient data on traffic stopsto determine whether racal profiling is occurring.How can the underlying data be nsuffcient to determine whether racial profiling isoccurring, but suffcent to conclude that Arpaio's office racially profiles more than anyother law-enforcement agency n the country?The DOJ says the sheriffs ofce "frequently" arrests Latinos without cause. Whatconsttutes "frequently"? The DOJ doesn't say.How does the percentage of wrongful anests of Latinos compare with that of non-Latinos? The DOJ doesn't say. How does the record of the sheriffs office compare withthat of other Valley law-enforcement agencies wth respect to wrongful arrests? TheDOJ doesn't say.Not all of the DOJ'S fndngs letter is so thinly evidenced or contradctory.The section on the treatment of Latinos in county jails does provide a facial case of the"pattern or practice" of racial dscrmination prohibited by federal law.As a general matter, however, the letter is uncomfortably weak regarding evidence toback up ts sweepng charges of pervasive racal discrimination.Arpaio, of course, contends that's because the issue isn't really racial discrimination. lfsan attempt by the Obama administration to stop hm from enforcing mmigraton laws.I don't think that's the case. Regrettably, however, the Department of Homeland Securitystrongly bolstered Arpao's argument when it rescinded the authoriztion for his office toaccess federal databases to check the mmigration status of those booked in the countyails.This is the one immigraton-enforcement program of Arpaio's that incontestably s

http://www.azcenttal.comlafizonarepublic/opinions/articleslzIIltZl20l20lll220rcbbl2...


32/34

DOJ's race claims are, alas, weakimplemented in a racially neutral fashion. The immigration status of everyone booked ischecked. The DOJ made no allegation that the sheriffs office was misusng thisauthority for discriminatory purposes.Arpaio's practice of checking lhe immigration status of everyone booked is nowinconvenient and potentially embanassing to the obama admnistration, gven theadministrative amnesty polcy t announced earler ths year. under that policy, onlyserious criminals are to be deported. Arpaio's office would be documenting the numberof illegal immigrants accused of lesser violations the Obama administraton would beignoring.After a widespread outcry, the DHS retreated a bit, sayng that lmmigration andCustoms Enforcement would do the jal checks.This, of course, makes no sense. ICE is hghly unlikely to be as available to countyprosecutors to make the case to deny bail to illegal immigrants as required by state law,or to be as forthcoming with the publc about the number of illegal immigrants bengbooked into the jals.l've made it clear that I think Arpaio is running a rogue agency. That his baselessaccusation of a vast criminal conspiracy involving county supervisors, senior countymanagement and judges was an assault on the rule of law. And that his immigrationsweeps violate fundamental American values and necessarily discrimnate againstlawful Latinos.ln my book, Arpaio wears a very black hat, and it would be great if some good guyschased him out of town.At ths point, however, t's far from clear that the Obama administration is wearng thewhite hat in this story.Re ach Ro b b at rob e 7. rob b@ a riz.o n a repu b I c. co m o r 60 2444- 847 2.

a Tvoe size: A A AEgr l P!. @ e."l. @l MostPooutara--a

MORE FROM AZCENTRAL MORE FROM THE WEBsancloned (unt1.m I news). Details seeded about clams (azcntral.m IArizona Republc Front Page)

Motorcvcl? (txchnologst)

Raole (azcentral.com I ua)(azntEl.m I Arizona Republic FrontPage)SIUlCOll(azntEl.m I news)

to lonore (Caring.com). Too Ten Flaws in FCC'S AT&T-MobileCompettion Analvsis (Forbes.com). 10 Thinqs Still Made in Ameri (fhestreet)

f,iNTT MBThe tonE R!lc

A' AI IUE'VAZ FACT CHECKR6rching qnd repoing the validiqofpolitiel claims and key toPics.Help us kp Aizon honst. hgkout the findinss.

http://www .azcentral.com/azonarepublic/opinions/articlesl}}Illl2l20l20lll220robbl2...


33/34

azcenftal.com - members

Welcome, guestfiresisterl@ "** | Soos I MoncyAhwbk Cl'andlcr

NEW SEARCH: Fnd artcles, photos, video@. Movies

I rhn,ssro po t I"ttpgru | wcat's | crs I e* | no.cPhnir Pinal Sftsdrle

J,City orZIP

Today's cat sh.'pi'e I lohs I Gs ISW Vller- Sur'risc Temoc Inf[g Archiv: lroh

Homes I Rentls I clrssificdGilbr Cl6dle

E.J. MONTINI'S COLUI\{NS & BI,OGF,J. l\hti i! colunn^! J;it'l-h 'lti:o,to lllurlc

DO.l's gol to fitx Arpaio's office or score ponts?

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has some serious concerns aboutthe U.S. Department of Justice's complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and thefeds... well... could care less.They ignore himAssistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Perez and Sheriff foe Arpaio toss accusationsback and forth over the outstretched arms of Montgomery, treating him like anunwanted little brother in a game of keep-away.If Montgomery were previous County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Arpaio'senabler, I'd understand iLAnd I get that the feds still might not trust Montgomery, a Republican whospeaks openly about not liking President 0bama or his administration'There are reasons for those of us who live here to question Montgomery'sjudgment when it comes to other local scandals. He refused to prosecute any oftheegislators who took tousands of dollars in gifu and free trips on the FiestaBowl dime, saying that state law was too vague. At the same time, he hasn'tbeen out tJrere publicly beating the drum in support of legislative efforts tostrengthen those laws.Still, that doesn't mean his points about te DOf 's investigation aren't valid'Montgomery sent a letter to the justice department outlining some of them buthasn'[ heard back For instance, he told me he was concerned about the iusticedepartrnent's claim that Arpaio's offce has no safeguards for protecting therights of Latinos susPects."When I was campaigning for this offce I met with business and communityleaders in the county, to include a number of different representatives from theHispanic community," the county attorney told me, "l pledged that if I wassuccessful I would work with the sheriffs ofce to insure tlat all theconstitutional standards for a legitimate prosecution would be met and I putthose reviews in Place."In addition to the mechanisms he has put into place, Montgomery points to thelengthy investigation by the Pinal County Sheriffs office into Arpaio'saef,arUnent, as well as to the departures of MCSO officials Dave Hedershott andLarry BlackMontgomery in a letr asked the justice departrnent for information regardingalleged civil rights violations by MCSO from November 2010 to the presenLHe has not received a resPonse.In addition, Montgomery disagrees with Perez's assertion that the D0finvestigation ,,is about ensuring that systems are in place to ensure that sexcrimes are fully investigated."Montgomery says those crimes are his responsibilities and his ofce isreviewing the MCSO cases in question, in addition to more than 2,000 other sexcrime cases at other law enforcement agencies (Phoenix PD, for example)'! ask-ed tle lustice Deparfment about all this and a spokeswoman sent me an e- )

http :/iwww .azcentral.com/members/blog/EJMontini/1 53 806


34/34

azcenttal.com - membersr mail reply that reads:

"ln a letter to the Justice Deprtment, the County Attorney made clear that hedoes not represent MCSO in this matter. The Justice Departrnent also offered to .brief the county Attorney on our findings and his office did not attend. As statedin our findings, a court enforceable agreement is key in order fix theunconstitutional conduct by MCS0."I'mnotsurewhatallthatmeans,exceptthatitdoesn'tansweranyquestions.Ishowedt}reDOJ'sresponsetoMontgomerywhoreplied,"Theystillhavenotacknowledged my request for information regarding my ability, aside fromMCS0 reprsentation, to review cases that DOI may be aware support teirclaims."A friend of mine from North carolina once described a predicament like this as"too many dogs and not enough re hydrants."TheDoJandthecountyattorneyshouldbeontlresameside.Ifthecountryattorney has protections in place then the D0f should evaluate them and tell usif tf,u''i. adequa. tf they'r no fix tlem. If t1'ey are they could become part ofthe "ourt enforceable agreement" the DOJ says is key to solving the problem'unless this isn,t about fixing a broken sheriffs office but about scoring politicalpoints. In that case, the DOJ might win, or the county attorney might win' orSheriff ArPaio might win.While all the rest of us lose.(Column for tan.29,20LZ Arizona Republic)

Srudrt', Jdnr :9. 1t: r, n,,=','nt ilRcFod t ViohtionTopla: M.TALK. ILIJCEDJ REP(I lc ml 'tmlsTs Mws Elfies M' mlnlcs

LEAVEA COMMENTntrd.m h switched to e Febook ment system on ib blogs. Ei-sting blog mms will display,tur"**"ns *ill only be acptvia r" .""bJok ^t"nt sysem To begin menting' you mut bel";;i;;;aci'.p"ooiu"*,rittiu"Jknvou'reloggedin'vouwillbesbleto@ment wlilew welme vou ro ro,n

"onu.o"oonr,i-.-,i* i*-p*ur" ror rrrr mmens md abue of this privilege will

;"1;;,;;. ;;-;",";ir,ii,""t *ing or notifition, to remove ments od block uersjg"Tr"" l,i,'iit"fitct ud Rul of dncaeemcnt Fa@book @mments FAoComents Pofed via facebook

O COMMENTS FROM O AZCENTRAL.COM USERS

RIIPUBT-lc c()l,ulNfsTsClrry ThotnPsonRobert lobbE,l N{ontiniLulic RobcrtsDoug \lacEachcrrtLirlrla Vnltlez

..iRtZO*.{ RlPtJBl.lC OPf r.-IONS Ilt 'O(;SEditorial BlogKnthlecn lnglcYCindr l{ernltndczIf-{D RloggcrRobcrf !-egerrtztlkr\ll Opinions Rlogs