melendres findings of fact

8/2/2019 Melendres Findings of Fact

1/106

PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAWNo.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

SD: 9355-1

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP333 Twin Dolphin DriveSuite 700Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418Telephone: (650) 632-4700Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] C. Byrnes (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneysfor Plaintiffs listed on next page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et.al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

PLAINTIFFS PROPOSEDFINDINGS OF FACT ANDCONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 106


2/106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTNo.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] & Burling LLP1 Front StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-5356

Telephone: (415) 591-6000Facsimile: (415) 591-6091

Lesli Gallagher (Pro Hac Vice)[email protected] & Burling LLP9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th FloorSan Diego CA 92122Telephone: (858) 678-1800Facsimile: (858) 678-1600

Dan [email protected] Lyall

[email protected] Foundation of Arizona3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235Phoenix, AZ 85014Telephone: (602) 650-1854Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

Cecillia [email protected] FoundationImmigrants Rights Project

39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0775Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

Nancy [email protected] American Legal Defense andEducational Fund634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90014Telephone: (213) 629-2512Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Anne [email protected] Lyon St. Fl. 2New Haven, CT 06511Telephone: (203) 432-3928Facsimile: (203) 432-1426



3/106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTNo.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Proposed findings of Fact ......................................................................................... A. Background Regarding the MCSO and HSU ............................................... B. The MCSOS Focus On Immigration/Saturation Patrols ............................. C. Saturation Patrols/Planning of Saturation Patrols ......................................... D. Statements of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO Regarding Illegal

Immigrations ............................................................................................... 1

E. Sheriff Arpaios Immigration File/Correspondence FromCommunity Members.................................................................................. 14

F. Correspondence Requesting Specific MCSO Action/SaturationPatrols .......................................................................................................... 19

G. Focus of Saturation Patrols: Illegal Immigration ........................................ 2H. Pretextual Stops During Saturation Patrols ................................................. 2I. MCSOs Purported Zero-Tolerance Policy ............................................. 2J. MCSOs Use of Race/Hispanic Decent ...................................................... 2K. MCSOs Lack of Racial Profiling Training ................................................ 2L. Distribution of Discriminatory Emails Within MCSO ............................... 3M. MCSOs Lack of Oversight ........................................................................ 3N. Federal Funding .......................................................................................... 34O. Actions of Arpaio and the MCSO Are Taken Under Color of Law ........... 3P. Expert Opinions Regarding Discriminatory Effects ................................... 3Q. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Ortega-Melendres ............................................ 4R. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez ......................................... 42S. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz ....................................... 44T. Traffic Stop Involving Jerry Alfonso Cosio ............................................... 47U. Traffic Stop Involving Julio and Julian Mora ............................................. 49



4/106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTNo.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

V. Traffic Stop Involving Lorena Escamilla .................................................... 50W. Traffic Stop Involving Daniel Magos ......................................................... 54X. Traffic Stop Involving Adolfo Maldonado ................................................. 57Y. Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Villaman ..................................................... 5Z. Traffic Stop of Lino Garcia ......................................................................... 6AA. Traffic Stop of David Vasquez ................................................................... 6BB. Traffic Stop Involving Andrew Sanchez .................................................... 64CC. Traffic Stop of Elaine Sanchez ................................................................... 6DD. Traffic Stop of Garrett Smith ...................................................................... 6EE. Traffic Stop of Diona Solis and Jaime Florez Sanchez .............................. 69FF. Traffic Stop Involving Jorge Urteaga ......................................................... 7GG. Traffic Stop of Leopoldo Arteaga ............................................................... 72HH. Traffic Stop Involving Anabel Avitia ......................................................... 74II. Traffic Stops Observed by Socorro Hernandez Bernasconi ....................... 7JJ. Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Mueller Rangel ........................................... 7KK. Traffic Stop Involving Tammy Charles Leija ............................................. 8LL. Somos America ........................................................................................... 83

II. Adverse Inferences ................................................................................................. 84III. Proposed Conclusions of Law ................................................................................ 8

A. Fourteenth Amendment Violations ............................................................. 84B. Fourth Amendment Violations .................................................................... 92C. Color of Law and Final Decision Maker .................................................... 9D. Injunctive Relief .......................................................................................... 97E. Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution .................................................. 9F. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..................................................... 99



5/106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTNo.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

I. Proposed findings of FactA. Background Regarding the MCSO and HSU

1. The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) is a local law enforcementagency that serves Maricopa County.

2. Maricopa County occupies an area of approximately 9,200 square miles.3. The population of Maricopa County is approximately 3.8 million people.According to census data, approximately 31.8% of the population identifies as Hispanic.

4. Maricopa County is divided into six geographical areas, referred to as Districts:District 1, District 2, District 3, District 4, District 6, and District 7.

5. District 1 covers the southeast quadrant of the county, including the cities ofChandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and Tempe, the Town of Guadalupe, and portions of the Town

of Queen Creek, and the cities of Apache Junction, Scottsdale, and Phoenix, including

the Ahwatukee Foothills.

6. District 2 covers the southwest quadrant of the county, including the rural areas ofBuckeye, Laveen, Mobile, Rainbow Valley, and Tonopah, the contract cities of Gila

Bend and Litchfield Park, and portions of Avondale, Glendale, Goodyear, and Phoenix.7. District 3 covers the northwest quadrant of the county, including the areas of SunCity and Sun City West, the communities of Wittmann, Waddell, Circle City,

Morristown, Whispering Ranch, Aguila, Gladden, and the unincorporated neighborhoods

surrounding Peoria, Surprise, and Wickenburg.

8. District 4 includes unincorporated areas of Anthem, Desert Foothills, New River,Cave Creek, Carefree and Tonto Hills and the contract Towns of Cave Creek and

Carefree.

9. As of 2008, District 6 includes the Town of Queen Creek.10. District 7 includes the town of Fountain Hills and the unincorporated areas ofFountain Hills, Tonto Verde and Rio Verde.



6/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

11. Districts are generally staffed by a District Commander (Captain), DeputyCommander (Lieutenant), uniformed sergeants and patrol deputies, detectives, and

administrative staff.

12. The MCSO has concurrent jurisdiction with some cities.13. MCSO does not, however, have concurrent jurisdiction with Mesa.14. The MCSO is also responsible for patrolling the lakes and waterways in therecreational areas within the county. The Lake Patrol Division is responsible for law

enforcement services in the recreational areas of Tonto National Forest and Lake

Pleasant Regional Park.

15. The Trails Division has the responsibility for law enforcement services in therecreational and wilderness areas of the Maricopa County Parks.

16. The Aviation Division provides airborne law enforcement support to uniformedpatrol, Lake Patrol, Search and Rescue operations, narcotics enforcement, extraditions

and SWAT operations.

17. The MCSO also has a K9 unit, which includes approximately 25 canines withvarious specialties, including narcotics, explosive ordinance, cadaver, and patrol.

18. The MCSO has over 3500 employees, consisting of secretarial staff, detentionofficers, and deputy sheriffs.

19. The MCSO has over 800 deputies.20. In addition to paid employees, the MCSO also relies on some 2800 to 3000posse members.

21. Posse members are volunteers who provide law enforcement services for little orno compensation, under the supervision of an MCSO sergeant or lieutenant.22. Some posse members are qualified to use firearms, and all serve in standard-issueMCSO uniform alongside MCSO deputies.

23. Posse members operate marked MCSO vehicles while on duty.



7/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

24. Unlike paid law enforcement personnel and reserve deputies, posse members arenot required to complete the basic law enforcement training for all peace officers or be

certified as peace officers by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (POST).

25. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio serves as the head of the MCSO and has final authorityover all of the agencys decisions.

26. Sheriff Arpaio sets the overall direction and policy for the MCSO.27. Sheriff Arpaio presides directly over a staff of some 15 to 20 members.28. Under the leadership of Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO has come to focus substantialpatrol and other resources to fight illegal immigration.

29. Deputy Chief David Hendershott was Arpaios second-in-command until April of2011.

30. As Deputy Chief, Hendershott was responsible for supervising all of the MCSOsoperations, both on the enforcement and detention sides.

31. Chief Brian Sands is Chief of Enforcement and, until April of 2011, reporteddirectly to Deputy Chief Hendershott.

32. Paul Chagolla is a Deputy Chief of the MCSO.33. The enforcement command comprises two bureauspatrol and patrol resources.34. The patrol bureau handles standard patrol operations for the entire MCSO.35. The commander of the patrol bureau is Deputy Chief Frank Munnell.36. Chief Frank Munnell reports to Chief Brian Sands.37. The patrol resources bureau is responsible for court services, enforcementsupport, the SWAT and K9 teams and the posse.38. When the Arizona legislature passed the states human smuggling law in 2005, itprovided the MCSO with $1.6 million in funding for enforcement efforts.

39. In 2007, the MCSO created a specialized unit to enforce the human smugglinglaw. This unit was initially called the Triple I Unit, which stood for illegal immigration

interdiction, and eventually became the Human Smuggling Unit (HSU).



8/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

40. The HSU grew steadily in size from April 2006, when it consisted of twodeputies, through September of 2007, when it consisted of two sergeants, twelve

deputies, and four detention officers, under the leadership of a lieutenant.

41. Since 2007, the commander of the HSU has been Lieutenant Joseph Sousa. Inthis capacity, Lieutenant Sousa has three direct reports: two sergeants and an acting

sergeant.

42. The HSU takes part in operations focusing on illegal immigration known assaturation patrols, working alongside ordinary deputies as well as posse members.

43. The duty of the HSU is to enforce state immigration law.44. The HSU is also a division within the patrol resources bureau.45. The commander of the patrol resources bureau is Deputy Chief David Trombi.46. Chief David Trombi reports to Chief Brian Sands47. Starting in September of 2007, Lieutenant Joseph Sousa has been the unitcommander for the HSU. Prior to Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Siemens was in charge

of the HSU.

48. Lieutenant Sousa reports to Chief Trombi.49. In June of 2007, Sergeant Manuel Joseph Madrid became a Supervisor, alongwith Ryan Baranyos, of the HSU.

50. Sergeant Madrid understands that assisting in crime suppressions or saturationpatrols is, for the most part, what HSU does.

51. Sergeant Brett Palmer is also a Sergeant in the HSU.52. Sergeant Madrid supervises six deputies in the HSU, including Deputies RamonCharley Armendariz, Gabriel Doster, Rock Lopez, Alex Ortega and RalphaelitaMontoya.

53. Sergeant Palmer supervises deputies in the HSU as well, including DeputiesCarlos Rangel, Jesus Cosme, Victor Navarrette, David Joya, Chris Lopez and Brent

Komoroski.

54. Sergeant Palmer and Sergeant Madrid also co-supervise each others personnel.



9/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

55. Sergeant Palmer and Sergeant Madrid report to Lieutenant Sousa.B. The MCSOS Focus On Immigration/Saturation Patrols

56. In 2006, Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio announced a new focus for hisagencyillegal immigration. He has described this focus as a crackdown on illegal

immigration.

57. Sheriff Arpaio and other MCSO command-level staff have prioritizedenforcement of immigration laws to an unusual degree for a local law enforcement

agency, even one situated near one of our international borders and even among other

Arizona law enforcement agencies.

58. In 2006 and 2007, Sheriff Arpaio made public statements equating illegalimmigrants with people from Mexico. He stated in 2006, at the same time he announced

the new focus on illegal immigration, for example, that If you get caught by

immigration, you get a free ride back to Mexico. He stated in an October 4, 2007 News

Release that as far as he was concerned, the only sanctuary for illegal immigrants is in

Mexico.

59.

As part of its new focus on illegal immigration, the MCSO sought, and in 2007,secured, an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to cross-

certify its field personnel to enforce the federal immigration laws under the Immigration

and Nationality Act 287(g), 8 U.S.C. 1357(g).

60. In a July 20, 2007 News Release, Sheriff Arpaio described his 287(g) officers astrained and anxious to address the illegal immigration problem. The News Release

stated that the officers would be out en masse to arrest anyone determined to be in the

country illegally. It also specifically noted that the Sheriff was recruiting officers from

local and national police agencies who are frustrated by their departments refusal to

actively fight illegal immigration.

61. As part of its new focus on illegal immigration, the MCSO created, publicizedand operated (and continues to operate) a hotline for citizens to call with complaints



10/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

about suspected illegal immigrants. In a July 20, 2007 News Release announcing the

hotline number, the MCSO stated that Sheriffs deputies would follow up on

information received on the hotline.

62. As part of its new focus on illegal immigration, around 2007, the MCSO beganconducting operations known as saturation patrols or crime suppression operations.

63. The saturation patrols or crime suppression operations that the MCSO beganconducting around 2007 focus on illegal immigration.

64. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that MCSOs programs focusing on illegal immigrationare designed to go after illegals, not the crime first. Its a pure program.

65. Because immigration status is not readily observable, it is especially difficult forlaw enforcement officers to find illegal immigrants who are not engaged in other

criminal activity or in the course of being smuggled to the United States. Illegal

immigrants that live and work in the community may blend in entirely with law abiding

residents. Because most illegal immigrants in Arizona are of Hispanic or Latino decent,

going after illegal immigrants creates a high risk that officers will rely on race or

ethnicity to select who to target for further investigation.

66. In an MCSO News Release dated July 15, 2008, the agency stated that itsoperations were geared to gain voluntary compliance among individuals illegally in

Maricopa County. The message is dont come here illegally, but if you are, leave.

67. It is not standard practice for local law enforcement agencies to look for illegalimmigrants who have not committed any criminal offense.

68. In November of 2007, Sheriff Arpaio said that he was planning to send deputiesright down there to the main street in Mesa and arrest some illegals.69. During the time that the MCSO possessed authority under 287(g) to enforcefederal immigration law, such enforcement also fell within the HSUs ambit.

70. Starting in 2007, 160 MCSO deputies underwent the requisite training andreceived 287(g) authority.



11/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

71. Lieutenant Sousa has estimated the average manpower involved in saturationpatrols as ranging between 80 to 100.

72. According to MCSO press releases, some saturation patrols have involved asmany as 200 participants. The MCSO has described its saturation patrols as deployingthe full resources of the Sheriffs Office including SWAT, aviation, electronic

surveillance, night vision and hi tech weaponry.

73. Many saturation patrols include the participation of posse members not certifiedby the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board.

74. Some MCSO deputies have worn belaclavas or ski masks during saturationpatrols.

75. Sheriff Arpaio holds press conferences after some large saturation patrols.76. The MCSO puts out a News Release after most large saturation patrols.77. The MCSO publicizes, through press conferences, News Releases, or other mediaoutlets, the number of arrests made and, in particular, the number of illegal immigrants

arrested during each saturation patrol.

78. The launch of saturation patrols and creation of the HSU cost MCSO significantresources.

79. MCSO personnel consider HSU a preferred assignment in part because membersof HSU are recognized by Sheriff Arpaio and other command staff.

80. When an agency does not take care to institute appropriate safeguards, thecreation of a high-profile, specialized unit like HSU fosters an agency environment

where officers seek assignment to the elite unit and feel themselves under pressure to

make as many arrests as possible in line with the units mission in order to impresssupervisors. This leads to a significant rise in intrusive, improper and misguided actions

81. The prioritization of immigration enforcement creates a heightened risk ofunlawful conduct by deputies.

82. On October 16, 2009, ICE modified its 287(g) agreement with MCSO so thatdeputies no longer had authority to enforce federal immigration laws outside of the jail



12/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

context. MCSO was the only jurisdiction for which ICE terminated such patrol

immigration enforcement authority.

83. On December 15, 2011, after the Department of Justice announced its findingsregarding constitutional violations in MCSOs policing and detention practices,including the racial profiling of Latinos, ICE terminated its 287(g) agreement with

MCSO entirely and ceased ICE responses to MCSO traffic stops.

C. Saturation Patrols/Planning of Saturation Patrols84. Chief Sands is responsible for planning saturation patrol operations, includingsite-selection.

85. In making decisions regarding site-selection for saturation patrols, Chief Sandsconsults as needed with subordinate commanders, including the heads of enforcement

support, the HSU, and the SWAT unit.

86. The MCSO regularly receives requests for sweeps or immigration enforcementactivity by phone, U.S. mail and e-mail.

87. Sheriff Arpaio passes on to Chief Sands immigration related requests received viatelephone, U.S. mail or e-mail.88. Sheriff Arpaio sends immigration related requests to Chief Sands because theymay assist him in the future on any operation he has.

89. Chief Sands testified that he understands that he is expected to do whatever [he]can about a citizens complaint.

90. Saturation patrols are regularly initiated based on citizen complaints.91. It is not generally accepted practice for the head of a law enforcement agency topass on racially charged materials that do not describe criminal activity to officers tasked

with designing enforcement operations.

92. Chief Sands has stated We respond to citizens complaints on a lot of things.Sometimes we have crime suppressions, sometimes theyre handled in a different way.



13/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

93. In its News Releases, the MCSO has described the goal of the saturation patrolsas arresting significant numbers of illegal immigrants.

94. After each saturation patrol, the MCSO provides the media with the total numberof illegal immigrants arrested.95. In its News Releases, the MCSO has referred to the saturation patrols as crimesuppression/illegal immigration details.

96. In an email to Lieutenant Sousa dated April 09, 2008, Lieutenant McGlone wroteI wanted to inform you so you could update the officers that conduct roundups of illegal

immigrants. Lieutenant Sousa stated, in an April 14, 2008 email in response, We do

not do round ups for illegal immigrants. We conduct saturation patrols in a specific

target area based on citizen complaints.

97. In an email from posse member Jim to Sergeant Brett Palmer and Deputy JesusCosme dated October 13, 2009 regarding a possible saturation patrol in Anthem, the

posse member wrote, Please give me a call if were going fishing, today.

98. Sheriff Arpaio testified that he believes that the word sweeps has a negativeconnotation and denied that the MCSO goes around sweeping people on the streets.

99. In Sheriff Arpaios calendar, days on which saturation patrols took place aremarked as sweeps.

100. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that he always has an official reason for doing thingsto win the lawsuits, and then he has his reason.

101. In advance of large saturation patrols, HSU prepares and distributes a planningdocument titled, Operations Plan, Overall Operations Summary, or Incident Action

Plan.102. The planning document typically designates a command post for the operation.103. The planning document typically designates the date, time and briefing locationfor the operation.

104. The planning document typically designates the units involved, uniforms,equipment, and radio channels for the operation.



14/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

105. The MCSO has conducted at least 13 large saturation patrols in which officersfrom different divisions participate. It has also conducted some smaller saturation patrols

consisting primarily of HSU units.

106. HSU typically gives a pre-patrol briefing and collects the officer stat sheets at theend of each saturation patrol.

107. In large agencies, it is generally accepted practice that these plans and activitiesaround a large operation are presented and discussed at Compstat style meetings where

most if not all of the operations staff is present and contributes to the development and

decision making concerning the methods and objectives of the operation.

108. It is a generally accepted practice that every person working the detail attends abriefing prior to the event. In this briefing, supervising officers explain the basis for the

operation, its objectives, the methods that will be utilized to accomplish those objectives,

and personnel activities and assignments.

109. At a minimum, generally accepted practices require that each supervisor carries acomplete operation plan and makes it available to all participating personnel.

110. The MCSO conducted a saturation patrol on September 27, 2007 in Cave Creek.At least nine individuals were arrested based on suspicion of being illegal immigrants.

MCSO conducted the operation in response to citizen complaints regarding day laborers.

111. The MCSO conducted a saturation patrol on October 4, 2007 in Queen Creek.Sixteen individuals were arrested under federal immigration laws.

112. The MCSO conducted a saturation patrol on November 14, 2007 in Cave Creek.MCSO conducted this patrol, in part, in response to the newly enacted town ordinance

regarding day laborers.113. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on January 18-19, 2008,covering 16th to 40th Streets / Indian School to McDowell Roads in Phoenix. In an

MCSO News Release, the agency announced it was deploying hundreds of volunteer

posse, including armed posse, reserves and deputies as part of the operation. It stated

that Sheriff Arpaio was going to conduct a briefing regarding the operation, joined by



15/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

some of the business owners who had requested the Sheriff come of the area. Sheriff

Arpaio anticipated that many illegal immigrants will be arrested.

114. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on March 21-22, 2008,covering 16th to 40th Streets / Indian School to McDowell Roads in Phoenix. 39 of the56 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants. None were arrested

under the state human smuggling law.

115. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on March 27-28, 2008, inthe area around Cave Creek and Bell Roads in Phoenix. 27 of the 53 persons arrested

were suspected of being illegal immigrants. None were arrested under the state human

smuggling law. In an MCSO News Release announcing the operation, MCSO noted that

the growing number of day laborers in the area was intimidating customers and creating

an atmosphere detrimental to business as well as physical deterioration of the area and

that he was conducting the operation because of a written request by business owners to

quell the problem. The Sheriff stated that he had no doubt the operation would net

an even larger number of arrests of illegal aliens than the operation on March 21-22,

2008.

116. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on April 3-4, 2008 inGuadalupe, Arizona. 9 of the 45 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal

immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law. The town is

comprised of an area of 0.75 square miles, with a population of between 5,000 and

6,000.

117. After Guadalupe Mayor Rebecca Jimenez expressed to Sheriff Arpaio that sheobjected to the MCSOs saturation patrol in that small town, Sheriff Arpaio respondedby stating MCSO intended to cancel its contract to provide law enforcement services to

Guadalupe.

118. The MCSO conducted a saturation patrol on May 6-7, 2008 in the town ofFountain Hills. At least 13 of the 17-20 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal

immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law.



16/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

119. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on June 26-27, 2008, inMesa, Arizona. 19 of the 63 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants.

None were arrested under the state human smuggling law.

120. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on July 14, 2008, in Mesa,Arizona. 26 of the 40 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants. None

were arrested under the state human smuggling law.

121. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on August 1314, 2008, inSun City and Sun City West. 79 of the 109 persons arrested were suspected of being

illegal immigrants. 23 of these were arrested under the state human smuggling law.

122. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on January 910, 2009, inthe Southwest Valley. 14 of the 52 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal

immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law.

123. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on April 23-24, 2009, inAvondale and the Southwest Valley. 20 of the 40 persons arrested were suspected of

being illegal immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law.

124. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on July 23-24, 2009,Chandler and the Southeast Valley. 15 of the 74 persons arrested were suspected of


125. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on September 5-6, 2009, inthe area around 35th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in Phoenix. 30 of the 61 persons

arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants. None were arrested under the state

human smuggling law.

126.

The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on October 16-17, 2009, inSurprise and the Northwest Valley. 21 of the 32 persons arrested were suspected of


127. The MCSO conducted a county-wide large-scale saturation patrol on November16-17, 2009. 33 of the 51 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants.



17/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

D. Statements of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO RegardingIllegal Immigration

128. Sheriff Arpaio stated that the 2009 modification to the MCSOs 287(g) agreementwould not change any of his policies on illegal immigration. He stated that nothing

changes. The MCSO has continued to conduct large-scale saturation patrols after

October 16, 2009.

129. During an interview with Glenn Beck in October of 2009, Sheriff Arpaio statedthat, based on his understanding of federal law, if local law enforcement comes across

some people that have an erratic or scared or whateverif they have, their speech, what

they look like, if they just look like they came from another country, we can take care of

that situation. But I dont need that anyway, Glenn, I can still do the job.

130. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that he rarely run[s] across people other than Hispanicscrossing the border illegally.

131. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that the Hispanic illegal immigrants who come toArizona by and large have certain appearances, including brownskin color.

132. Discussing allegations that his agency was engaged in racial profiling duringimmigration enforcement operations, Sheriff Arpaio stated, I have to tell you

something. Its not politically correct to say this. Where do you think 99 percent of the

people come from?

133. In 2008, Sheriff Arpaio published a book with co-author Len Sherman titled,Joes Law: Americas Toughest Sheriff Takes on Illegal Immigration, Drugs, and

Everything Else that Threatens America. The book discusses illegal immigration at

length, and suggests that Mexican and Hispanic immigrants are different than all other

immigrant groups in U.S. history because they maintain identities, from language to

customs to beliefs, separate from the American mainstream and seek to reconque[r]

American land for Mexico. The book then distinguishes Arpaios own parents: My

parents did not regard any inch of American soil as somehow belonging to Italy, so their

arrival here never constituted a reconquest of that land.



18/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

134. Arpaio promoted the book,Joes Law, during book signings and interviews. Allof Arpaios interviews have to do with his duties as Sheriff as well, including topics such

as illegal immigration, Tent City and chain gangs. As such, the line between what is in

his book and his official business is not firm.135. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that illegal immigration from Mexico is impacting onour culture because we are seeing their failure to assimilate.

136. Sheriff Arpaio has described the illegal immigration problem as an epidemic.When the swine flu broke out, the MCSO sent out a news release announcing that

deputies would be wearing face masks and gloves in the field to protect them from

illegal immigrants coming from Mexico.

137. Describing his plan to march 200 illegal aliens to a separate area in his TentCity jail surrounded by an electric fence, he said This is a population of criminals more

adept perhaps at escape . . . . But this is a fence they wont want to scale because they

risk receiving quite a shockliterally.

138. In a News Release dated July 20, 2007, Sheriff Arpaio said, of the MCSO, Weare quickly becoming a full-fledged anti-illegal immigration agency.

139. Sheriff Arpaio also stated in the July 20, 2007 News Release, in connection withthe announcement that MCSO had become a full-fledged anti-illegal immigration

agency, that We have heard the people speak, we understand their frustration and will

continue to do all that we can to reduce the number of illegal aliens making their way

into the United States and Maricopa County.

E. Sheriff Arpaios Immigration File/Correspondence From CommunityMembers

140. Sheriff Arpaio has an immigration file, a file devoted to the issue of immigration,where he keeps letters from his constituents and press clippings regarding immigration.

141. Sheriff Arpaio decides, personally, what goes into his immigration file.142. Sheriff Arpaio received and saved, in his immigration file, letters and newsclippings explicitly advocating racial profiling.



19/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

143. Sheriff Arpaio has had his assistant, Helen Gonzalez, send thank you letters tomany of the individuals who wrote to him regarding immigration.

144. Sheriff Arpaio has also circulated certain of the letters he has received fromconstituents regarding immigration to Chief Sands and others within the MCSOleadership.

145. It is not generally accepted practice for the head of a law enforcement agency tocirculate materials that advocate racial profiling or are racially charged within his office.

146. Circulation of such material sends a message to subordinates that the sentimentsexpressed should be considered as communicating the Sheriffs desires for the agencys

operations.

147. An anonymous letter dated March 12, 2009 in Sheriff Arpaios immigration filestates, in part, Their claim about your profiling in doing your job is ridiculous Where

else would you look for illegal aliens except in neighborhoods where they would

reside[?]

148. Sheriff Arpaio requested that a copy of the March 12, 2009 letter be sent to BrianSands, among others.

149. An email from Charles L., dated March 8, 2008, in Sheriff Arpaios immigrationfile states, in part, What your officers are doing is actually 'statistically validating, and

In the real world we all rely on 'stereotyping' every day. It's simply a natural reaction. . .

. . If it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck . . . . !"

150. In response to the March 8, 2008 email from Charles L., Sheriff Arpaio requestedthat a thank you letter be sent to Charles and that a copy of the email be sent to Brian

Sands.151. A letter from Garry and Kay R., dated February 1, 2008, in Sheriff Arpaiosimmigration file complains about motorists speeding, raising an actual concern for the

safety of those in the area, but then goes on to complain about Mexicanson the

cornerpeddling their old corn, peanuts, etc., and to express frustration at how the

police officers ignore these Mexicans when they are speeding right by them.



20/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

152. Sheriff Arpaio wrote a note on the February 1, 2008 letter from Garry and Kay R.that says will give the info to my illegal immigration OFFICERSto look into.

153. A letter from Robert L., dated February 12, 2008, in Sheriff Arpaios immigrationfile states, Joe, those terrorist bear a close resemblance to those Hispanics, they are darkskinned, dark eyed, and have black hair . . . . Hispanic criminal immigrants must

include some actual Muslim terrorists . . . they are here because Bush, in his insane

determination to give this country to Mexico, has made that possible.

154. In response to Robert Ls February 12, 2008 letter, Sheriff Arpaio requested that athank you letter be sent and that copies of the letter be sent to Brian Sands and Paul

Chagolla.

155. On October 27, 2009, Richard H. forwarded an email he had sent to theArizonaRepublic to Helen Gonzalez of the Sheriffs office. In the email, Richard H. writes, the

only Hispanics that fear to report crimes are the ones here illegally, and continues

[w]hat our open border crowd calls racial profiling is what I call reasonable suspicion

and probable cause, both of which are legal grounds for further reaction . . . . If it walks

like a duck and quacks like a duck . . . .

156. Richard H. writes actively on illegal immigration issues, and Sheriff Arpaio hastalked to him personally in the past.

157. Sheriff Arpaio forwarded Richard H.s October 27 email to Chief Sands.158. Richard H. has sent other correspondence advocating racial profiling. SheriffArpaio has retained copies and circulated these materials.

159. In two of the many emails Richard H. sent to Sheriff Arpaio, and which Arpaiokept, Richard H. specifically equates racial profiling with establishing probable cause.160. Defendants police practices expert Bennie Click testified that he was not surewhether its appropriate or inappropriate for Sheriff Arpaio to forward the October 27

email from Richard H. to Chief Sands, and that law enforcement needs to be very

careful taking any action based on, you know, an e-mail like this. Mr. Click further



21/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

stated that if he had received such correspondence as a police chief, I dont think I

would even respond to it.

161. In 2005, the Minutemen Project wrote to Sheriff Arpaio asking him toinvestigate and deport illegal immigrants when they are spotted in our cities, andfurther stating, How is it that hundreds, if not thousands, of day laborers stand on our

cities street corners every day of the year without fear of being questioned? . . . If you

are serious on working the illegal immigration issue, we are serious about working with

you. Sheriff Arpaio sent this letter on to Chief Hendershott and told him We should

have a meeting (internally) and decide how to respond.

162. In July 2007, Carole B. sent a letter to Sheriff Arpaio. In the letter, she quotes astatement by Phoenix attorney Antonio Bustamante questioning what right does

[Sheriff Arpaio] have to investigate people based on the color of their skin, or their

accent or the way they look and states, in response, that [t]he right you have is as an

elected law enforcement official. She goes on to relay that her Italian mother had been

profiled based on ethnicity during World War II, and states that it was the right thing to

do.

163. Sheriff Arpaio sent a thank you letter in response to Carole B.s July 2007 letter,stating I especially enjoyed reading the story of your Italian grandmother and her

experiences after coming into the country legally!

164. In a letter to Sheriff Arpaio dated February 8, 2007, CT S. writes that illegalHispanic immigrants are trying to take over and change the culture of the United States.

She describes the immigration of Hispanics as a monstrous onslaught and refers to a

Cinco de Mayo program at an elementary school as openly seditious.165. In response to the February 8, 2007 letter from CT S., Sheriff Arpaio requested athank you letter be sent stating that he will continue to fight the problem facing our

county.

166. A 200-page immigration book authored by Diana E. and sent to Sheriff Arpaiocontains a chapter on racial profiling, purporting to capture the view of most U.S.



22/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

citizens. The chapter states, Of course the Latinos are being targeted; who else is

coming over from Mexico - The Swedes?

167. Sheriff Arpaio forwarded the book from Diana E. to Chief Sands and CaptainPaul Chagolla.168. In a letter to Sheriff Joe, Sarah M. and Erika S. write that Stopping Mexicansto be sure they are legal is not racist. Because our state is a border state to Mexico, so of

course, there will be more Mexican illegals here than any other ethnic group.

169. Sheriff Arpaio requested that a thank you letter be sent to Sarah M. and Erika S.,forwarded their letter to Chief Sands and asked for three copies for himself.

170. Sheriff Arpaio did not express disagreement to his colleagues with respect to anyof the materials in his immigration file, including when he passed those materials on to

his colleagues.

171. Chief Sands cannot think of any occasion on which Sheriff Arpaio has forwardedany statements or materials to him that the Sheriff did not agree with.

172. Given the hierarchical nature of the MCSO, when a person in Chief Sandsposition receives instructions like those that the Sheriff penned on top of requests for

action, the subordinate officer will likely take into account what he receives from his

commanding officer; if that were not the case, there would be no reason for the request

to be forwarded.

173. Sheriff Arpaio sent to Chief Sands a copy of a letter from John B. stating thatHispanic countries allow their citizens to run amuck like wild feral animals and that

we have too many dysfunctional Hispanics [in the U.S.] already.

174.

Sheriff Arpaio forwarded an email from The Class West dated January 20,2009 to Chief Hendershott, Chief Sands, and Chief Macintyre. The email refers to Judge

Murguia as a token Hispanic female judge.

175. On November 28, 2006, Sheriff Arpaio received a document titled Illegal AlienContributions to the U.S., which claims that 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix

are for illegal aliens and that 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal



23/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

aliens, as well as listing various other statistics such as the number of Spanish

speaking TV and radio stations in Phoenix and Los Angeles.

176. Sheriff Arpaio sent the document to Chief Sands because he thought thedocument related to Chief Sands law enforcement activities.177. Sheriff Arpaio did not check to see whether the information contained in theIllegal Alien Contributions to the U.S. was true or not before circulating them to his

officers.

178. Deputy Palmer sent an email on June 13, 2009 to other members of MCSO thatincluded a number of these same statistics.

179. On April 30, 2007, the Los Angeles Times published an article demonstrating thatthe statistics circulated by Deputy Palmer were wholly inaccurate.

180. Sheriff Arpaio acknowledged that assertion that 83% of warrants for murder inPhoenix are for illegal aliens does not sound right.

F. Correspondence Requesting Specific MCSO Action/Saturation Patrols181. On or about June 24, 2008, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from Gina M., inwhich she stated, They have the nerve to say we are racially profiling. Please, it is whatit is. If you have dark skin, then you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of the

Mexican illegals who are here illegally.

182. The letter further stated I am begging you to come over to the 29th St/GreenwayPkwy area and round them all up. Sheriff Arpaio drew a line, highlighting the

paragraph in which this statement was made.

183. Sheriff Arpaio forwarded Gina Ms letter onto Chief Sands with a note that said,Have someone handle this, because, according to him, he was building up

intelligence on crime areas in the city.

184. The MCSO did saturation patrols in the area near 29th Street and Greenway.185. On or about May 26, 2009, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from a Stella C.,stating, in part, On this particular day, all of a sudden a large amount of these Mexicans



24/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

swarmed around my car, and I was so scared and alarmed, and the only alternative I had

was to manually direct them away from my car.

186. Arpaio forwarded the May 26, 2009 letter from Stella C. on to Chief DeputyTrombi with a note for him to keep file on these complaints, and also to have someonecontact the author. Although Sheriff Arpaio first stated that he passed the letter on

because she talks about a crime, he admitted that no crime was actually described in the

letter.

187. On or about August 8, 2008, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from Bob andLynnette W. requesting an immigrant sweep in Surprise, specifically at the intersection

of Grand and Greenway. The basis for their request was that [t]he area contains dozens

of day workers attempting to flag down motorists. Sheriff Arpaio forwarded the letter to

Chief Sands.

188. On August 1, 2008 Arpaio received a letter from Gail V. complaining aboutpeople speaking Spanish at McDonalds in her area and telling Arpaio that he should

check out Sun City.

189. Sheriff Arpaio acknowledged that Gail V.s August 1, 2008 letter did not describeany criminal activity. Nevertheless, Sheriff Arpaio wrote a note on the letter stating

Letter, thank you for the info. Will look into it.

190. Sheriff Arpaio passed Gail V.s August 1, 2008 letter on to Chief Sands with ahandwritten notation for our operation.

191. On or about August 13 & 14, 2008, the MCSO conducted a saturation patrol inSun City.

192.

On May 8, 2008, Mike Sa. wrote a letter to Sheriff Arpaio calling his attention tothe situation in Mesa, stating that Living in Mesa, I can drive down any of the streets

where day laborers (most of whom, I would believe to be here illegally) gather and wait

for work. This is in full view of the Mesa Police who continually patrol these streets,

but I have yet to see the police stop in order to determine whether these day laborers are

here under legitimate circumstances.



25/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

193. Sheriff Arpaio sent Mike Sa.s letter to Chief Sands with a notation next to theportion asking for police action against the day laborers as intelligence.

194. On May 24, 2008, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from Jack Se., whom Arpaiohad corresponded with before, stating that Mesa needs a sweep . . . terribly. He notedthat the head of Mesas police union is Hispanic, and commented, This is what you get

from Mesa. He criticized a Hispanic officer for refusing to arrest 30+ illegals because

they were just standing there.

195. Chief Sands testified that Jack Se. likely believed the individuals were illegalsbecause they were dark complected people.

196. In response to Jack Se.s letter, Arpaio wrote, I will be going into Mesa andsent a copy of the letter to Chief Sands, with the intention of drawing Sands attention to

Mr. Se.s concerns.

197. Arpaio also wrote Jack Se. a letter stating in part, Please know that I share yourconcern regarding the impact [illegal immigration] is having on our country and

Maricopa County.

198. On June 26-27, 2008 and July 14, 2008, MCSO conducted large-scale saturationpatrols in Mesa. An MCSO news release announcing the first Mesa operation said that

Sheriff Arpaio was sending his officers there [i]n keeping with his promise to the public

and to east valley state legislators.

199. When asked about conducting sweeps as a favor to officials, Sheriff Arpaioresponded, I have a strange old philosophy that if someone does something for you,

gives you resources, gives you money, I think if they want something back, we ought to

do it.200. It is not the standard practice for sheriffs to supersede the authority of the localpolice department in its enforcement efforts. Nor is it typical for a sheriff to publicly

criticize a local chief or department in the manner in which they enforce the law, as

Sheriff Arpaio did of Mesas department.



26/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

201. The MCSO performed these sweeps in consideration of the fact that the MCSOdid not think a Hispanic police chief was being tough enough on Hispanic day laborers.

202. On or about October 3, 2007, MCSO received an email from Deborah B., whichhad been forwarded by John Kross, the Town Manager of Queen Creek. Deborah B.complained that kids passing [] the area . . . have seen Hispanic man take out cell

phones and look like they were taking a picture of the kids. She described Hispanic men

being silly and complained that they see our cars and children pass everyday. She

stated that these Hispanic men are highly suspected of being illegal immigrants and

that the situation was making a lot of people feel uncomfortable.

203. Sheriff Arpaio could not tell if any crime had been committed based on DeborahB.s email. Sheriff Arpaio passed the message on to his people to look into further and

because the MCSO would be remiss in our duties not to respond.

204. On October 4, 2007, MCSO conducted a saturation patrol in Queen Creek basedonaccording to the Operations Plane-mails from the town council in reference to

the day laborers in their city.

205. The MCSO News Release stated that the operation was conducted in response tocitizen complaints that day laborers were shouting at the children and photographing

them. It stated that it had received over 120 calls on the tip line about day laborers, and

the heading for the News Release stated that Sheriff Arpaio was go[ing] after day

laborers.

206. On October 12, 2007, Lieutenant Sousa and Sergeant Madrid received an emailfrom Dr. J praising what you did out at 25th St. & Bell and discussing day laborers in

the area, whom Dr. J alleges admitted they were illegal when asked.207. On November 19, 2007, Dr. J sent an email to Sheriffs Media Requestsdiscussing protests across the street from Pruitts near 36th St. & Thomas Rd. The email

refers to a mariachi band and says [t]hese illegal activists are putting on a freak

show. Sheriff Arpaio requested that a copy be sent to Chief Sands.



27/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

208. The MCSO conducted saturation patrols near 36th Street and Thomas Road onJanuary 18-19, 2008 and March 21-22, 2008.

209. In a letter dated August 8, 2008, Bob and Lynette W. letter state that they wouldlove to see an immigrant sweep conducted in Surprise and that there are dozens of daylaborers attempting to flag down motorists. Sheriff Arpaio requested that a copy of the

letter be sent to Chief Sands.

210. The MCSO conducted a saturation patrol in the town of Sun City and Sun CityWest on August 13-14, 2008.

211. Sun City and Sun City West border Surprise and are often considered as part ofthe same general area.

212. The MCSO also conducted a saturation patrol in the town of Surprise on October16-17, 2009.

213. MCSO regularly received requests for sweeps or immigration enforcementactivity by phone too. Sheriff Arpaio would review phone logs of such requests and

make note of some. He would also pass some on to Chief Sands. For example, Sheriff

Arpaio flagged several calls for Chief Sands requesting sweeps that described no

criminal activity and only immigrants hanging out . . . on corner. He also routed a

note to Chief Sands about a call from Wayne L. of Mesa on September 20, 2007

complaining about all the Mexicans handing out on Mesa Dr. between Southern and

Broadway.

G. Focus of Saturation Patrols: Illegal Immigration214. Prior to 2006, when MCSO deployed significant resources for a large patrol,officers were given information on a particular crime or a particular type of criminal

activity with respect to that particular patrol.

215. It would be consistent with generally accepted practice for saturation patrols tofocus on a specific type of criminal activity. Saturation patrols are typically used by law

enforcement to impact an increase in a specific crime or a rise in violent crime in a



28/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

limited geographical area, such as that which would arise from a gang-related turf war.

The targeted locations are typically developed through objective crime analysis.

216. In the experience of Defendants expert, Bennie Click, saturation patrols usuallyfocus on DUIs or gang activity. In such cases, officers would focus on a specific areawhere the problem was known to take place and would be given instructions on how to

target those individuals. Mr. Click explained that If its drunk drivers, I dont want

somebody down buying drugs at the park. I want them out looking for drunk drivers.

217. In the saturation patrols conducted by MCSO since 2007, officers have not beengiven instructions to look for any patterns of criminal conduct or specific criminal

suspects.

218. None of the MCSOs operations plans described any relationship between thecrime data they contain and the operation. Plans for operations conducted months apart

appear to contain virtually the same crime data. Some operations plans contain no crime

data at all. These are not generally accepted practices for such operations.

219. Since 2007, the MCSO has not relied on comparative analyses of crime or traffichazards to justify a saturation patrol or selection of a site for a patrol.

220. Defendants expert, Bennie Click, acknowledged that none of the saturationpatrols appeared to have been implemented due to a concern about DUI or traffic

accidents.

221. Lieutenant Sousa testified that a spike in traffic problems did not trigger anysaturation patrols.

222. MCSOs objective on saturation patrols was not general crime suppression.223.

MCSOs objective on saturation patrols was to interdict illegal immigrants.

224. Defendants expert, Bennie Click, acknowledged that the general information toofficers . . . was that this is aan illegal immigration enforcement effort.

225. Several saturation patrol operations were explicitly focused on day laborers.226. Deputy DiPietro, Deputy Rangel, Chief Sands and Lieutenant Sousa believe thatmost day laborers in Maricopa County are Latino or Hispanic.



29/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

227. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sands both acknowledge that being a day laborer is nota crime.

228. Chief Sands stated that he could not think of an instance in which the MCSOarrested a day laborer who was not Hispanic.

H. Pretextual Stops During Saturation Patrols229. The MCSOs primary tactic on immigration focused saturation patrols is toconduct pretextual traffic stops for minor violations and then investigate the driver

and/or passengers for possible immigration violations.

230. The tactic of hoping to locate persons involved in serious criminal activitiesbecause they happen to be in one of the stopped vehicles is not a generally accepted

practice unless the targeted acts are vehicle related including DUI or an increase in

serious traffic crashes at a location.

231. Pretextual traffic stops are not generally recognized as an appropriate device forinvestigating alienage.

232. On operations conducted by the MCSO targeting day laborers, undercover unitsidentify vehicles that appear to be carrying illegal immigrants and then develop probablecause to stop those vehicles for a traffic violation.

233. Generally speaking, day labor activity is not an issue where conducting pretextualtraffic stops is appropriate. If the presence of day laborers is creating traffic hazards,

then an appropriate operation will be designed to control traffic hazards and not to make

arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. If the behavior of day laborers is creating public

safety issues of some kind, an appropriate operation should be designed to address those

dangers. Pretextual traffic stops do not directly address either issue.

234. During saturation patrols, MCSO officers have conducted many stops for minorviolations of the traffic code, including minor equipment violations. This departs from

MCSOs traffic stop enforcement priorities during regular patrol.



30/106


31/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

244. The MCSO did not conduct monitoring or data analysis to ensure that the zerotolerance policy was being applied.

245. The collection and analysis of data on traffic stops is a generally accepted practiceof law enforcement organizations.246. Zero tolerance does not eliminate officer discretion in traffic stops and wouldnot prevent racial profiling.

247. A zero tolerance policy combined with a lack of any follow-up to determinewhether officers are in fact applying the policy would not prevent racial profiling. It

would actually make it harder for supervisors to detect it because more officers would be

making traffic stops for minor violations. As a general matter, officers exercise greater

discretion in making traffic stops for minor violations. Officers exercising their

discretion in a racially biased way would not draw attention unless supervisors examine

the race or ethnicity of the persons stopped.

248. The MCSO officers have wide discretion to question passengers on immigrationinvestigations on saturation patrols.

249. MCSO deputies routinely ask for identification from occupants of the vehiclewho are in no way connected to the violation for which the vehicle was stopped in the

first place.

250. Defendants expert, Mr. Click, observed that officers were briefed to contactpassengers and ask them for documentation.

251. It is a generally accepted practice for a law enforcement agency to have a writtenpolicy to define and to prohibit racial profiling.

252.

MCSO witnesses have been unable to identify any agency-wide written policyprohibiting racial profiling.

253. The MCSOs Code of Conduct does not include any prohibition on racialprofiling. Nor do MCSOs policies and procedures on Search and Seizure, Traffic Law

Enforcement Guidelines, Traffic Violator Contacts, or Citation Issuance or Arrest

Procedures include any prohibition on racial profiling.



32/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

J. MCSOs Use of Race/Hispanic Descent254. Sergeant Palmer is of the view that race or ethnicity can be one of several factorsconsidered in deciding whether or not to initiate an investigation once a vehicle is

stopped. Sergeant Madrid also believes that race and ethnicity may be considered in an

immigration screening.

255. MCSO deputies have described relying on apparent Hispanic descent toinvestigate potential violations of the immigration law in incident reports of human

smuggling stops.

256. Operation plans for saturation patrols do not prohibit race and ethnicity frombeing considered in the determination of whether to investigate someones immigration

status after a traffic stop has been made.

257. The presence in some of the operations plans of a simple statement that racialprofiling is prohibited is insufficient to remedy the problem. Some operations plans did

not contain any statement regarding racial profiling. Some operations were carried out

with no operations plan at all.

258. Additional bases for investigation into a persons citizenship and immigrationstatus by MCSO include the person speaks only Spanish, appear[ing] that the person

just came from Mexico, and presence in an illegal alien locale.

259. Sergeant Madrid recalled racial profiling training in the academy over ten yearsago, but was unable to remember what it covered. The only additional racial profiling

training he received was as part of the 287(g) program.

260. MCSO officers believe that the 287(g) training program they received permitsthem to consider race or ethnicity as one factor in a totality of circumstances test when

investigating potential violations of the immigration law.

K. MCSOs Lack of Racial Profiling Training261. It is a generally accepted practice for a law enforcement agency involved inimmigration enforcement to implement ongoing racial profiling training to remind

officers of their ethical responsibilities, how inherent biases can creep into their decision



33/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

making, when to disengage from stops when probable cause doesnt exist, and to inform

officers that the department will take action on misconduct.

262. It is a generally accepted practice to include training in racial profiling and humandiversity topics, not only as a part of recruit training but also in the departments in-service training curriculum every two to three years.

263. Deputy Ratcliffe only received racial profiling training at the police academy in2003 and through the 287(g) program.

264. The only racial profiling training Deputy Armendariz has received was the shortand sweet program at the academy in 2005 or 2006. Even though he is 287(g)-certified,

he did not recall any other training.

265. Deputy Kikes believe[d] he had received racial profiling training as a part ofannual training by AZPOST, but had attended no other training during his career.

266. AZPOST training does not regularly include a unit on racial profiling.267. Generally accepted practices require that appropriate training on racial profilinginclude not just a passive video presentation, but an exchange of ideas, examples and

engagement by the officers.

268. MCSO officers do not receive regular or periodic training on racial profiling orsensitivity.

269. MCSOs failure to have a clear, agency-wide prohibition against racial profilingthat includes a definition of racial profiling does not comply with generally accepted

police practices.

270. The training that MCSO officers received was inadequate and did not preparethem for the complexities of immigration enforcement through traffic stops away fromthe border, and does not comply with generally accepted police practices.

271. Increased training for troopers, supervisors and managers about racial profilingand human diversity is a generally accepted practice of law enforcement organizations

that are involved in immigration enforcement.



34/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

L. Distribution of Discriminatory Emails Within MCSO272. An MCSO officer used his county email account to circulate a photo of a mockdrivers license for a state called Mexifornia, which included a photograph depicting

stereotypical Mexican features. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sands acknowledged that

this email could be offensive and was not in good taste.

273. Sheriff Arpaio could not state whether circulation of the Mexifornia license emailviolated a policy of his department.

274. HSU officers and others distributed Mexican Word of the Day emails makingfun of Mexican accents on an ongoing basis. Chief Sands acknowledged that these

emails are offensive.

275. HSU officers and others circulated other emails containing jokes, derogatorystatistics and derogatory characterizations of Hispanics and Hispanic culture using their

county email accounts.

276. In one such example, HSU Sergeant Palmer sent an email with an attachmententitled, Indian yoga versus Mexican yoga depicting a man in a yoga pose with the

subtitles Indian Yoga Requires years of practice to achieve, and a man who appears

to be passed out from intoxication with the subtitle Mexican Yoga Requires about 3-4

hours to achieve.

277. Jim van Allen, an MCSO posse member also sent emails containingdehumanizing characterizations of illegal immigrants and praising a program from the

1950s known as Operation Wetback.

278. Some supervisors, including supervisors in the HSU, were included in thecirculation of emails containing jokes, derogatory statistics and derogatory

characterizations of Hispanics and Hispanic culture.

279. MCSOs failure to immediately put an end to the circulation of such materialscreated an impression that such stereotyping was appropriate and fell below generally

accepted police practices.



35/106


36/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

289. Sergeant Palmer specifically testified that as long as there was a legal reason forthe traffic stop, that end[ed] the inquiry for him about racial profiling.

290. Sergeant Palmer knows his officers do not profile because, as he states, Quitefrankly . . . I know my brothers.291. Sergeant Madrid is typically at the command post during saturation patroloperations and is not present at traffic stops.

292. Despite having no means of verifying whether [his deputies are engaging inracial profiling, Sergeant Madrid trust[s] that his deputies do not profile.

293. MCSO saturation patrol operations plans do not describe any specific role forsupervisors working in the operation.

294. Sergeant Madrid acknowledged that all but one of the names on a sample set ofsaturation patrol arrest lists from a March 2008 saturation patrol appeared to be

Hispanic. However, neither he nor Lieutenant Sousa saw any issue with this or felt the

need to investigate further.

295. Even assuming that every Hispanic person that MCSO arrested on that March2008 patrol was in the country unlawfully, that only accounts for about two-thirds of the

Hispanic persons arrested on that operation. Unless Hispanic individuals commit other

crimes at a significantly greater frequency than the general population, the high

percentage of Hispanic individuals arrested suggests that Hispanics were stopped and

investigated with greater frequency.

296. Chief Sands acknowledged that 90 percent of arrestees on one of the smallersaturation patrols in Fountain Hills appeared to be Hispanic, even though that area is

predominantly non-Hispanic.297. Other than the tallying of immigration arrests, MCSO conducts no after-action de-briefing after a saturation patrol.

298. In addition to individual officers records, in the case of a large operation, it is thegenerally accepted practice for the officer in charge of the operation to prepare an after-

action report that evaluates the success of the event and points out shortcomings that



37/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

should be considered in the future. No such reports are prepared by MCSO beyond a

tally of the citations issued and the arrests made so that they might be released to the

media in release or press conference.

299. Lieutenant Sousa, the head of HSU, testified that he felt that racial profiling was anot a concern because he trusts his officers.

300. Since MCSOs 287(g) agreement was terminated, Lieutenant Sousa has instructeddeputies not to push the issue with traffic stops where there is no probable cause to

believe that some other crime is being committed.

301. Sheriff Arpaio testified that there was no need for racial profiling training becausehe had confidence in his officers.

302. Sheriff Arpaio testified that he himself would not be bothered if he was a victimof racial profiling.

303. Chief Sands, Chief Deputy Hendershott and Lieutenant Sousa each testified thatthey were not aware of MCSO ever having disciplined an officer for racial profiling.

304. Increased responsibility of supervisors to monitor stop data to evaluate jobperformance and identify as early as possible potential problems around the use of race

in traffic stops is a generally accepted practice among law enforcement organizations

pursuing immigration enforcement.

305. MCSOs minimal documentation about traffic stops and failure to review thedocumentation that was available for patterns that would reveal racial profiling falls

below generally accepted police practices.

306. Given the deputies considerable discretion, MCSOs failure to actively monitorofficers activities during saturation patrols falls below generally accepted policepractices.

307. Defendants expert, Mr. Click, agreed that the MCSO supervisors approach tosupervision, as reflected in their testimony, did not meet generally accepted standards.

308. It is particularly important that supervisors review individual deputies records onstops on a regular basis, in order to detect whether individual deputies have a pattern of



38/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

disproportionate stops of any particular racial or ethnic group or questioning or searches

that have a low rate of effectiveness (that do not lead to discovery of crimes).

309. In addition, an agency must also review the accumulated data to detect patternsthat warrant additional investigation. Such review should examine the data at differentlevels (unit-wide, or shift-wide) as problems within the agency may be masked or diluted

when looking only at the agency as a whole.

310. It is a generally accepted practice for officers who are found to have patterns ofenforcement activities that might indicate bias to be interviewed, counseled about their

actions, and supervised more closely so that their superior officer can intervene if the

officers behavior is deemed to be inappropriate.

311. Supervisors should ensure that such officers do not delve into areas ofenforcement that they are not yet trained in and that they will call for assistance when

confronted with complex legal questions concerning search and seizure.

312. The MCSO has never disciplined an officer for racial profiling.313. The MCSO does not have a formal system for individuals to make complaintsregarding instances of alleged racial profiling.

314. ICE had no basis on which to opine whether or not MCSO was engaged in racialprofiling. They did not attend most operations and were not present at any traffic stops.

They were not concerned with the basis for MCSO activities conducted under state laws,

including traffic violations, and did not examine MCSO activities for evidence of racial

profiling.

N. Federal Funding315. The MCSO receives federal funding, including in the form of pass-throughgrants.

316. The MCSO receives federal financial assistance.317. The MCSO uses federal funding in connection with police activity, includingconducting traffic stops and saturation patrols.



39/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

O. Actions of Arpaio and the MCSO Are Taken Under Color of Law318. Actions taken by the MCSO with regarding to traffic stops and saturation patrolsare taken under the color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of a State,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

319. Actions taken by Sheriff Arpaio in his role as Sheriff of the MCSO are also takenunder the color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of a State, pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

320. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio is the final decision maker for Maricopa County, underArizona state law, in the area of law enforcement, and is responsible for setting and

implementing the policies and practices of the MCSO, including but not limited to

creating and regulating department policies regarding the stops and arrests and related

treatment of individuals in motor vehicles in Maricopa County.

321.P. Expert Opinions Regarding Discriminatory Effects

322. Plaintiffs statistical expert, Dr. Ralph B. Taylor, conducted an analysis ofMCSOs CAD database for racial and ethnic patterns and differences, with a focus on

the impact of MCSOs saturation patrol operations on Hispanic individuals.

323. MCSOs CAD database does not contain a record of the race or ethnicity ofpersons stopped during traffic stops. To determine whether an individual stopped was

Hispanic, Dr. Taylor relied upon data from the U.S. Census on surnames strongly

associated with Hispanic ethnicity. This method is commonly accepted in social

sciences, including criminology, political science, and public health. Although it is

possible that an individual with a Hispanic name might not be Hispanic, and vice

versa, these effects cancel each out to produce an accurate estimate in the aggregate; if

anything, the method slightly undercounts Hispanics.



40/106


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

melendres findings of fact

Documents