Feb 1 Doj Letter

Wrrum
B. Jorurs, JR.
zgflI
iIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUE
TETEPH0TTE:
(602) 263-1714 Fnx: (6021 200-7801 E-MArr: wJoNEs@Jsfl nRl.coM T.

MASTERSON
WLffrN& LJI T HOCHULI,
SurrE 800
PHoENrx, AnrzoruA 85012
P.L.C.
Proru: (602) 263.1700 Fnx: (602) 651.7599

WWW.JSHTIRM.COM
JOHN
TETEPHoNE:
(602) 263.7330 Fnx: (602) 200-7846 E.MAIt: JMASTERSON@JSHTIRM.COM Josrpn J. Popouzro* TETEPfl oNE: (0021 263-174,| Fx: (602) 200-7876 E.MAtt: JPoPouzro@JsHFrBM.coM .AISO ADMITIED
IN CONNEcTIcUT
AND WASHINGTOil, D.C.
February 1,2012
Thomas E.Perez Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re:
Dear Mr. Perez;
U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV 1 O- 10878-PHX-GMS
Thank you for your January 17, 2012 letter in response to my January 4, 2012 letter to you regarding the Title VI investigation of the Maricopa County SherifPs Office, your Letter 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 my January 4, 2}I2letter's content, painting our request for information as an attempt to delay this investigation, once again, appears to demonstrate the DOJ's insistence to ignore the MCSO's and Sheriff 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 thousand of documeniation in response to the DOJ's recent supplemental request.l In addition, my patttt"rs and I have scheduled a February 6,2012 meeting with DOJ attorneys to discuss the resolution of this investigation, a meeting that will occur well within your requested sixty (60)
pages
See he Supplemental Response to the First Request for Documents and Information dated January 18,2012 attached as Exhibit l.
2754291.1
JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

February 1,2012 Page2 day time frame. S/e look forward to our February discussions with Roy Austin and Jonathon Smith 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 W nvestigton. Despte your contenton, our request for nformaton is not calculated to d.ely the resolution of th matter, but rather to brng it to a sound, fctully bsed concluson Yet the 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 even contrary to Attorney General Eric Holder's recent comment to Timot Overton, Special Assistant to Sheriff Arpaio, at the January 17, 2012 Major County Sheriffs Meeting in Washington,'D.C. As the Attomey General stated, "We need to work together." Indeed, the only way to enter into the constructive dialogue and to effectively'owork together," as you and Attorney General Holder respectively suggest, is for the DOJ to provide the factual detail behind
its findings in this investigation. Make no mistake, we look forward to meeting with DOJ attorneys to address the DOJ's findings and to bring this Title VI investigation to a close. V/ith our goals clearly stated to avoid any confusion as to Sheriff Arpaio's and the MCSO's intent, I will address the issues and arguments set forth in your January 17,20lzletter.
The DOJ's Refusal to P{qvide Facts is the Obstacle
To borrow your phrase, "its strains credulity" that the DOJ believes that it has provided the facts on which it bases its findings. And that to whioh you have referred in your January 17,2072letter as the facts forming the basis of the DOJ's findings, leaves much to be
desired.
The Length Of A Letter And Extent Of An Investigation Is Not A Substitute For X'act
Although you maintain otherwise, neither the sheer lengfh of your conclusory
December 15,2011 letter, nor the length of the DOJ's investigation is a substitute for the facts we seek. 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's investigation does not remedy the lack of factual support for the DOJ's conclusions, either. V/e hope that Mr. Austin and Mr. Smith will not only shed light on the DOJ's findings during our February 6,2012 meeting, but also provide the factual bases that we have requested or, at the very least, be willing to discuss a blueprint for the provision of the facts that the DOJ claims to support its findings. When we met with Messrs. Austin, Gray, Smith, and Shapiro on the morning of December 15, 201I, we \rere assured that we would be provided with at least some facts. Accordingly, we are baffled by the DOJ's subsequent, drastic change of position, despite Attomey General Holder's Statement that "we need to work together."
275429r.1

February 1,2012
Page 3
The DOJ's Reliance OnMelendres And Other Litigation Is Misplaced
Your reliance on the lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio, United States District Court Case No. CV07-2513-PHX-GMS and, specifically, a recent decision in that case, as a factual basis of the DOJ's conclusions in this investigation is misplaced. United States District Court Judge Murray Snow's December 23, 20Il interlocutory ecision in Melendres was issued eight days after your December 15, 20ll Letter of Findings.' To portray that decision or the mere existence 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 Melendres my serve to whp the unknowng into frenzy of protest, s n ttorney you well know thut the mere extence of accusatons in ltigtion proves nothng.
Moreover, the separate Orders set forth in Judge Snow's December 23,2011 Memorandum of Decision n Melendres neither establish thatracial profiling nor any of the other acts alleged in that lawsuit occurred. Contrary to your assertion, none of Judge Snow's December 23,2011 Orders establishes a pattem and practice of racial profiling on the part of the MCSO, 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 information that the MCSO provided, the DOJ certainly did not rely on the unavailable documents that Judge Snow addressed in his December 23,2011 Order. Thus, the DOJ's claim that documents that it never received, let alone considered, are now somehow the factual bases of its findings in this investigation is puzzling. Judge Snow's Orders in Melendres simply do not provide any factual basis for your December 15, 20ll Letter of Findings--and neither does your reference to two other unrelated actions.3
See20l1U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148223.
tYourreliance onMorqv. MricopaCounty, No.2:09-cv-l719andNidov. MaricopaCounty, No.2:l0-cv-1291 as purported evidence of a pattern and practice of the MCSO's alleged racial profiling is equally as misplaced as your reliance on Melendres. While both Mor and Nido concluded by settlement and stipulated dismissal, neither case contained any ruling that racial profiling occurred. Mora Fxned on whether probable cause existed to stop Plaintiffs in the inner perimeter of a warrant execution that the court decided was not clearly established; in addition, the deputy who altegedly made the stop and subsequent release in Mora could not be identified, leaving the MCSO unable to refute Plaintiffs' claims. Moreover, Nido was an excessive force case that resulted in the MCSO's dismissal of the involved deputy, but also in aggravated assault charges against him. Again, unproven allegations in
an action should not constitute the factuai bases of the DOJ's findings or a pattern and practice of racial profiling.
27542gt.1

February 1,2012 Page 4
Media Reports Are Insufficient
Your vague reference to "media accounts" also does not provide the factual
specificity we seek, either. In contrast to the DOJ, we are not comfortable relying on ambiguous references to o'numerous media accounts of alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions by MCSO officials" as factual basis of the DOJ's findings in this matter.a Perhaps media reports are a sufficient bases for the DOJ to launch a Title VI investigation, as DOJ attorneys have mentioned many times during the instant investigation. Media reports, however, are neither a substitute for fact, nor should they constitute the factual basis of the DOJ's findings and associated requests to revamp certain operations of the MCSO.
The DOJ's Refusal to IdentiS Documents is Unreasonable Thank you for your acknowledgement of the MCSO's cooperation with regard to the provision of "thousands of documents including policies, procedures, reports, training materials, 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 not mention the one hundred forty five (145) inmate interviews that the MCSO arranged at the DOJ's request, the acknowledgement of the MCSO's extensive cooperation is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, I must address the inaccuracy of your comments regarding the provision of documents and the occurrence of interviews as providing the factual bases to the DOJ's findings that we seek. I will address your comments as to the provision of documents
.
first. The Identification Of The Documents On Which The DOJ Relies Is Easier Than The DOJ Portrays It To Be We reject the DOJ's position that a return of each page that the MCSO provided 'We made no such electronically is required to furnish the factual basis of the DOJ's findings. information on which the DOJ and its request and complying with our request for documents and experts rely does not in any way require the DOJ to simply return documents to us. The absurdity of that position is obvious. Interestingly, we have underreported the number of pages of documents that the MCSO has provided to the DOJ in this investigation. lncluding the 6,006 pages that the MCSO has recently provided to the DOJ on January 18,2012, the MCSO has provided the DOJ 92,402 pages of documents on compact discs. However, an estimate of the amount of documents on
See pg.2, paragraph Joseph J. Popolizio.
I of the
of
January 17,2012letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attorney
See pg.2, paragraph2 Joseph J. Popoiizio.
fhe January
17,z}lzletter from
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attomey
27s429t.1
JONES, SKELTON
February 1,2012
Page 5 each
& HOCHULI, P.L.C.
of the 123 gigabytes of documents previously provided to the DOJ on a93l gigabyte hard drive is approximately 15,477 pages of documents per gigabyte. As a result, an estimated
1,895,623 pages of documents are contained in the hard drive that the MCSO provided to the DOJ pursuant to the DOJ's requests for information and documents. Thus, the MCSO has provided the DOJ with approximately 1,988,025 pages of documents pursuant to the DOJ's requests 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 is required 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 pages of documentation that the MCSO provided, Certainly, the DOJ has focused on a subset of pages that supposedly caused it concern and on which it relies to support its findings. Accordingly, the set of documents we seek is relatively more concise and more readily available for production to the 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 in subfolders, and are identified by topic, document request, number andlor if applicable, specific jail facility, 'We organized these documents to provide ease of identification for the DOJ and the MCSO 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 by idenffing the documents on whch t focased, wth the use of the very system that the MCSO deved. If the DOJ has relied on documentation that the MCSO provided, then the DOJ should be able to identiSr those documents with relative ease. Despite this fact, the DOJ simply has refused to identify the documentation on which it relied to reach its findings.
The DOJ's refasal tntmount to statng tht the MCSO has provded a haystck of documents nd that the MCSO must engage n the utterly mpossible exerce of ftndng the needles on whch the DOf refies to support its Jndings. The DOJ and its experts can identify the documents on which they focused because of the well organized format by which 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 work with the DOJ to reconcile our differences and the first step in this reconciliation process begins at our February 6,2012 meeting.
6 Lexis Nexis document estimator was utilized to arrive at the estimated number of documents available on the hard drive that the MCSO provided. In anticipation of potential criticism regarding the use of this tool, we remind the DOJ 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's
requests.
27s4291.l
JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.

February
Page 6
I,20I2
The DOJ Overstated The Information Available To The MCSO As A Result Of The Interview Process
In addition to the oversimplification of our request for documents, the DOJ also made generalizations regarding the information that the DOJ gleaned from interviews it conducted in this investigation. To state that MSO attorneys were present for many of the
interviews is exaggerated and misleading. As you are well aware, my partners and I did not attend all of the interviews that the DOJ conducted in this investigation. The DOJ allowed us to attend only 53 MCSO command staff interviews, including interviews of volunteer Sheriffs Posse members, and excluded us from all 32 of the non-cormand staff interviews. These were the DOJ's ground rules, which we followed. Thus, we attended none of the MCSO staff interviews to which you refer and from which the DOJ allegedly gleaned the disparaging sound bites and information set forth in your December 15,2011 letter. In addition, and again at the DOJ's request, we were neither allowed to attend any of the 145 inmate interviews, nor any of the purported interviews of unidentified individuals.
Thus, the DOJ contends that it conducted over 400 interviews, but we were allowed to attend only 53 of those interviews. As a result, we did not participate in well over 347 interviews that the DOJ conducted in this investigation. As a result, it s mpossble to refer to non-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 we must merely refer to approximately 2,000,000 documents and the results of interviews, the majority of which we never attended, "strains credulity" to borrow your phrase, once again. The DOJ's refusal to provide the information we requested and to identiff by number documents readily available in electronic format, sheds a dim light on the character of the DOJ's investigation and, perhaps, illustrates Sheriff Arpaio's contention that this investigation is "political" and, therefore, suspect. Surely, because of MCSO cooperation, the DOJ has the basis of 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 is also 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, among the burdensome requests from the DOJ that resulted in the MCSO's copious production, not one of the DOJ's requests targeted these investigations. Like the DOJ's recent, yet unfounded reliarrce on the Melendres decision, the Oi no-w appears to rely heavily on recent, inaccurate
2754291.1
JONES, SKELTON
February 1,2012 PageT
,SL
HOCHULI, P.L.C.
reports that hundreds of sex crimes remain rurinvestigated. To dispel the insinuation and rumor that hundreds of sexual assaults and molestations remain uninvestigated or unresolved, I offer the following factual overview.
Many of the matters to which you allude pre-existed MCSO involvement. MCSO became aware of many of these matters after a local municipality contracted itto provide law enforcement 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 group of investigations, were not exclusively of a sexual nature. Most importantly, although the DOJ criticizes the MCSO for an alleged failure to monitor itself, the MCSO's own, internal audit revealed that these matters needed attention. As a result of this audit, the MCSO quickly moved forward to investigate each matter.
Within eight months after this audit, 189 of these matters were "closed
exceptionally cleared." Most importantly, only four of these matters remain open today. The continued pendency of these matters are either due to awaiting the results of DNA testing from the Department of Public Safety Q), the pending interview of a suspect serving in the armed forces due to a DNA test confirmation (1), or the decision of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office as to whether it will prosecute (1). The MCSO has fully addressed the concerns that these open matters presented. Therefore, to intimate that hundreds of sexual assault and child molestation cases remain unattended under the MCSO's watch is simply disingenuous and does nothing but further the dissemination of falsehood.
The Statistical Report on Which the DOJ Relies is Readily Available for Easy Disclosure
The DOJ could easily provide the statistical report regarding traffic stops referenced in your December l5,2}ll letter. The use of the internet would allow that to happen with the touch of a button. Yet, the DOJ not only refuses to provide this report on which it heavily relies, but your January 17, 2012 letter failed to even mention this report despite our Why? Although the MCSO has provided all of the information that the specific request for DOJ requests and more, the DOJ's refusal to provide the factual bases of its findings makes Sheriff 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 upcoming February 6,2012 meeting, and subsequent meetings and communications, fruitful. And despite your suggestion otherwise, the MCSO is prepared to do just that.
it.
"sheer volume" of our requests for it is a true mirror image of, and demonstrates the information and documents, but only because dearth 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 of the requests does resemble written discovery in litigation, I was perfectly clear that litigation
Mt. Perez,I can ommiserate regarding the
2754291.1
JONES, SKELTON 6l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

February 1,2012
Page 8
could and should be avoided. That thought still prevails on our side of this equation; avoiding litigation is clearly in both parties' best interests. However, as I stated in my January 4,2012 letter, and as you ignored in your January 17, 2\lzletter, if we proceed to undesired litigation, it is probable that the court will compel the DOJ to provide what we now request. In litigation, the rules of civil procedure and evidence 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 the DOJ relies, the inadmissibility of their hearsay statements is clear. And as you have failed to address our inquiry as to whether affidavits or interview recordings or transcripts exist, it is impossible to even consider not conducting interviews or depositions of the individuals on whose statements the DOJ purportedly relies. Undoubtedly, as an attorney you well understand that independent verification of allegations against one's client is fundamental. No exception to this simple concept exists, and unfortunately, the conduct of the DOJ in this matter, as well as other serious matters affecting Maricopa County and the State of Arizona, compounds our unwillingness to even consider making an exception to this precept of practice. Consideration of the facts on which the DOJ relies without verification is not an option.
retaliate against 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 this investigation and potential litigation. The watchful eyes of the United States Department of Justice, the press, and perhaps a United States District Court Judge if litigation ensues, would readily observe and swiftly address any allegedly feared retaliation. The bright spotlight that they provide should alleviate any reasonable amount of anxiety, regardless of how unfounded that anxiety might be.
In addition, we do not agree with your concern that the MCSO will
The DOJ Rigidly Interprets Title VI to Conceal the Bases of lts Findings
The DOJ's use of Title VI as both sword and shield in this matter frustrates the claimed pu{pose of this investigation: ensuring that the MCSO operates constitutionally. While Ttle 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 alleged dscrmnton, ether. Even staunch critics of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO agree that the MCSO's request for the factual bases of the "findings" against it is reasonable.'
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." The Montini, E.j. Arizona Republic 2l December 2011. http:llwww.azcentrai.com/membersrBiogRobertR.obbli5i202;
2754291.t
JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.

February
Page 9
I,20I2
Indeed, the concepts offundamentlfarness and due process, as opposed to the concealment of facts, should be absolutely psrsmount to the United Sttes Deprtment of Justce. Factual revelation will certainly increase the ternpo of this mafrer, avoid unwanted litigation, and transform it from the letter writing campaign that it has recently become back into the productive exercise it was due to the MCSO's cooperation.
In addition, the tutorial that you provided regarding the DOJ's conducting of a Title VI investigation does not demonstrate our supposed incorrect reading of Title VI, DOJ regulations or the guidelines contained in the DOJ's lnvestigation Procedures Manual-despite
your suggestion otherwise. The citations to the DOJ's Manual in my January 4,2012letter are as accurate as our inquiries and requests are valid. However, your recent written attempt to use DOJ guidelines to conceal the factual bases of the DOJ's findings was ineffective and it ignored my direct inquiries regarding this investigation.
Furthermore, despite our request, you did not address whether your December 15, ("LOF") or an Investigative Report ("IR"). In any event, as the 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 MCSO to offer rebuttal evdence or poston statement pursuant to DOI gaidelnes? Unless you state otherwise, we presume that the DOJ does not intend to allow the MCSO any opportunity to rebut the DOJ's findings. That is patently unfair.
201
I letter was a Letter of Findings
Once again, we submit that the DOJ's failure to disclose evidence on which it relies renders *ttempt to rebut the evidence that the DOJ possesses an impossible task.8 "rr.n While the DOJ's own Manual also instructs DOJ investigators to test conclusions by considering all possible rebuttal arguments by the recipient (here the MCSO) and the complainant, we question how this testing occurred without allowing the MCSO to present rebuttal arguments in light of the DOJ's refusal to share the facts on which it relies. V/ithout providing the MCSO the opportunity to rebut the DOJ's findings, the DOJ's investigation appears to be a one-sided exercise with a preconceived outcome, despite the DOJ's own guidelines.
, ?t
rt
The DOJ's bald assertions that media accounts, unproven allegations in two settled lawsuits and one pending lawsuit, MSO attomey attendance at only 53 of the well over
400 interviews that the DOJ conducted, the August 2011 stipulated dismissal of the DOJ's action against Sheriff Arpaio, and the MCSO's possession of the voluminous documentation that it provided 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: I lwww.azcentral. com,/members/blogJMontini/ I 5 3 806 I Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints Alleging Violations ^SZe Titie Vi anci Other Non-Discrimination Sratutes (i998), p. i45 and i63.
of
2754291.1
JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.

February 1,2012
Page 10
and 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 to articulate its findings and, of course, reconsider its unreasonable refusal to provide the factual bases of its findings pursuant to the MSO's reasonable request. To echo Attorney General Holder's words, "We need to work together." On behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO and my partners William R. Jones and John T. Masterson, we have been working and will continue to work with the DOJ and look forward to hosting our meeting with your staff and, perhaps you also, on February 6,2012. Bear in mind, however, that the constructive dialogue of which the DOJ speaks is possible if the DOJ provides the facts and information on which it bases its findings-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/jan
cc:
William Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney Avner Shapiro, DOJ Civil Rights Division
2754291.1
EXHIBIT
Wrrunu
R. Jors, Jn.
TET.EPH0NE: (602) 263.1714 tnx: (602) 200-780,l E.MAtt: wJoNEs@JsHFlRM.coM
2901 llloRTtt Gel\rnnt Avrrrue SurrE 800
Jorru T. Mnsrrnsoru
TETEpHoNE: 16021 263'7330
ffi#.irn,,
Pfl
oENtx, ABlzollA 850 1 2 PHoNE: (6021 263.1700
trx:
(602) 651-7599
WWW.JSHFIRM,COM
trx:
(6021 200-7846
E.MAII.: JMSTERSON@JSHf IBM.COM
Josptt J. Popottzo* TETEPH0NE: (6021 263.1741 tex: (6021 200-7876 E.MAtt: JPoPoLlzlo@JsHFlRM.coM
'Arso
ADMTTTD
lN CoNNEcrlcur
AND WAsHtNcroN. D.C.
January 18,2012
Mr. Avner ShaPiro
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section Patrick HenrY Building 601 D Street, NW Washington, D.C. 2057 9-0001
Re:Unitedstatesv.MaricopaCountySheriffsoffrce
CV2Ol 1-1878-PHX-GMS
Dear Avner:
This letter and the enclosed CD containing 6006 pages of documentation for Documents and constitute the MCSO's supplemental response to the First Request documents you Information. Specifically, ts response prvides you with the information and requested in response to Requests3,17,28,29, and34'
you had requested this additional documentation and email exchanges' The information during our Decemb et l, 20Il telephone conversation and MCSO's July 28, 20ll documents we now provide were previously identified in the
As you
are aware,
and have been comprehensive response to the First Request for Documents and lnformation Justice for review and available to you and the rest of your tam from the Department of 1,2011, it would be reproduction since July 28, 20II. As we discussed and agreed on December and Bates labeled these much less time ,onru*irrg and more cost effective if we located, copied
rlnrrne.nfs
2723074.r
JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

January 18,2012
Page2 The following supplemental responses and enclosed CD are the product of our continued cooperation with ihis litte vl investigation. We have set forth each request to which we are providng a supplemental response, immediately followed by the MCSO's corresponding, supplemental response in table format for ease of reference.
components or govemment entities (internal or extemal) that investigate or review allegations misconduct, including unconstitutional searches and seizures and discriminatory policing.
3.
Identify and describe the function and reporting authority of all MCSO
of
Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the following

documents:
Internal Affairs Division Operational Manual, effective date 09/01

08641s)
12010
(MC086399-
Sample copies of all forms used by the MCSO to document its law force reporting enforcement activities, inciuding but not limited to control of persons reports, logs' call logs' forms, incident reports, arrest reports, field incident reports, patrol logs, radio and reports, and evidence logs' arrest logs, seizure..p.t, and logs, jail logs, desk sergeant logs If any of the foregoing forms do not exist, please so state'
17.

documents:
u ttuarrsMl lGGl ING DIVISION FORMS
BEG NO
MC086416
arcnns Sunnlement Narrative q-r^rlinn Fllrinmenf Loan Receiot lJr /Crime SuPPression Totals Arrest List Qinn-ln Flnsfer Traininq Event Roster National Notlfqllsn EeIm lncident Summary MCSO 287(sl Vehicle Release Authorization Tio Form Frearms Traininq Qualification Score Sh99 Safe Loq
MC0864f7
MC086418 MC086419 MCo86420 MC086421 MCo86423 MC086424 MC086425 MCo86426 MCo86427 MCo86428 MC086431 MCo86433 MC086435 MC086436 MG086439 MC086440 MC086441 MC086442
END NO MC086416 MC086417 MC086418 MC086419 MC086420 MC086422 MCo86423 MC086424 MC086425 MC086426 MC086427 MC086430 MC086432 MC086434 MC086435 MCo86438 MCo86439 MC086440 MCo86441 MCo86443
ffiieisn
ffi
Frrrn F
il overtimef ayqen1lqlqlm EeIm
racfirrnnaire
ffirm fhar (Juesfions for Suoolement

Form 4 lnterview Questions P re=Booklnc !nfornnatlon Sheet
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

January 18,2012 Page 3
cunicula for new recruits and current officers (i.e., inservice training), including roll-call training. Supplemental Response: See zttached CD-Rom, specifically the following
documents:
UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINING MATERIALS Handwritten note regarding recruit lesson plans pulled
DATE
28. All current training
BEG NO
MC086444
END NO MC086444 MC086455
from Box 164 (not applicable) Bas Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan - Fit Testinq Basc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - lntroduction to Correctional Health Services tetntion Officers Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - Operations Journal Basc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - Academy Organization gasc t etention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation' Glassification of lnmates gasc Oetention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Code of ConducUTruthfulness/lnternal Affairs Recrut Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page - lnternal Affairs for Recruits Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - Contraband Control Basc Detenton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - Correctional Law and the Criminal Justice System Providers With GPR, @care First Aid and AED Using the 2010 Guidelines for CPR and ECC.20ll - Present, Gourse Gontent gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - Grime Scene Preservation gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan ' Crisis lntervention & Stress and Anger Management gasc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Documentation Procedures Basic Detention Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page Emeroencv Procedures Basc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Page - Employee Performance Appraisals, Discipline and Grievance Procedures gasic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Gase Studies in Ethics gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - lntroduction to Facility Security n*^ V notonfinn- lfiaar --i _r- -- : :.t I escon Plen and POWef g -- - - - v i - i -'-- - cadamv E
0110412010
MC086445
08/03/2010
I t/09/2009
MC086456 MC086493 MC086517 MC086519 MCo86536 MCo86538 MC086540
MC086492 MC086516 MC086518 MC086535 MCo86537 MC086539 MG086552
09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010
09/09/2010
MC086553
MCo86573
MCo86574 09113t2010 MCo86576 MCo86601 09t1312010 09t1312010 MCo86603 MC086606
MCo86575 MC086600 MC086602 MC086605 MCo86607
09/13/2010
0911312010
MC086608 MC086610 MC086612 MC086614
MCo86609
MCo866lt
MC0866r3
MCo86630
09t15t2010
09115/2010
-'
--_
2't23074.1
JONES, SKELTON {" HOCHULI, P.L.C.

UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINNq NIA'IEBIALE Point Presentation - Fingerprinting Basic Detention Officer Academy and Selected Sworn Personnel Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Fire Procedures Basic Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Gover Paoe - Fit Testinq gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Games lnmates Plav Basic Academv Lesson Plan Gover Page - Gangs in Jg!! DATE
BEG NO END NO
09/15/2010 09/15/2010 09/15/2010

09t1012010 09t2112010
0912112010
MC086631 MC086633 MC086634 MG086636 MC086638 MC086640 MC086641 MC086664 MC086667 MC086670 MC086672 MC086674
MG086632 MCo86633 MC086635 MCo86637 MC086639 MC086640 MC086663 MC086666 MCo86669 MC086671 MC086673 MC086675
gsc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson PIan Cover Paoe - Handlinq Abusive lnmates Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - Headcounts and Security Walks, Policy DH-!gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - Hostage PrqgCglggBas'c Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - lncapacitation Weapons - OC Spray Detenton Recruit Lesson Plan - lnmate Discipline and Grievance Procedures gasc Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - lnmate Lawsuits and lnmate RightsBasic Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Gover Paoe - lnmate Services/Programs gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paae - lnspection and Drill Basc Detenton Officer Academy Lesson Plan and Power Point Presentation - lntake and Release Procedures for Facilitv Housing gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - lntroduction to Correctional Health Services Lesson Plan CoverPage-Field @ Trainino Proqram. lnterpersonal Gommunication gasc Otention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Jail DiversitY
K-9 Basc Detention Officer Academy Lesson PIan Cover Paqe - Restraints Overview Oetenton RecruiUDetention Officer Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Narcotics and Danqerous Drugs Oetenton OfiCers Lesson Plan Cover Page - Operations
09t2112010 09t2112010
0912112010
09t2712010 09t2712010
0912712010
MC086676 MC086695 MC086697 MCo86699 MC086701 MC086702 MG086704
MC086694 MC086696 MC086698 MC086700 MC086701 MC086703 MC086705
08/03/2010
09t2712010 09t2712010
09/,2712010
10t04t2010
Journal; Sworn, Detention, Posse and Civilian Employees Lesson Ptan Gover Paqe - Mandatory OSHA Traininggasic Oetention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Phvsical Gonditioning/Weightroom Orientation Unformed Officrs Lesson Plan Cover Page - PepperBall Launcher User Gertification Rcademy and Continuing Training Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - PREA - The Prison Rape Elimination of 2003 - --L-La-Lesson lJan anq rower rolnr rresefltal(,fl'
10t0412010 10124t2010 10t0412010

0313112011
MCo86706 MC086710 MG086712
MC086709 MC086711 MG086713 MC086715 MG086743
4^rÂtr^tl, rv vrv-t-v
MC086714
irnea7,l a
2723014.1
JONES, SKELTON
6l HOCHULI,
P.L.C.
UPDATED RECRUIT TRAINING MATERIALS Professionalism in the Workplace gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Psvcholoqv of Survival Bsic Detention Academy Lesson Plan Cover Page -
DATE
BEG NO
END NO
10t0412010 10t0412010 10t0512010
MC0867t4
MCo86745 MCo86747 MC086749 MC086751 MC086753 MC086755 MCo86757 MC086759 MC086761 MC086762 MC086763 MCo86765
Radio Procedures gasc OCtention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Report Writing Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paoe - Role of the Detention Officer Lesson Plan Cover Page - Safe Bed Procedure Bas'lc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Search Procedures gasc Oetention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Gover Paoe - Sions and Svmptoms of Mental lllness gasc Detention Officer Academy Lesson Plan Gover Paoe - Sudden tn-Gustodv Death Svndrome (SICDS) Basc Detenton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - Suicide Prevention in Jail Basic Detention Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paqe - Taser Basc Detent'ton Academy Recruits Lesson Plan Cover Paoe - Uniform Care and Maintenance Basc Detenton Acdemy Recruits Lesson Plan Gover Paqe - Use of Force (CP'1)
MC086746 MC086748 MC086750 MC086752 MC086754 MCo86756 MC086758 MC086760 MCo86762 MC086763 MCo86764
09/08/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010

10t0612010
r0/06/2010 10t07t2010
0110012011
1010712010 1010712010
relating to the MoA with ICE. In addition, include materials related to local training, described in Section VII of the MOA.
documents:
LEGAL UPDATES OCC - Arizona Lesal UPdate OCC - Arizona Leqal UPdate OCC - Arizona Legal UPdate Memorandum and Attached DRO Field Procedures Memoiandum Regarding 287(9) Processing
DATE 02t0112009 0r/0112009 12t0112008 04/03/2009
12t1412007
29. All training materials, including initial and updated training materials,
as

BEG
Xq
END]N8
MC086769 MC086772 MC086776 MG086782 MC086783 MC086797 MC086798 MC086799 MC086810 MC086811
MG086766 MC086770 MC086773 MC086777 MCo86783 MC086784
Guidelines .Slimrn g rtion and Customs Enforcement 287(9 ) Quick Reference ProcessinL Mmorandum Regarding Arizona Attempt Convictions Reinstatement of Removal ffig - Fernandez-Vargas v Gonzales Case Law Memrandum Regarding Mandatory Fingerprinting of ICE Detainees
o2r07t2008
02t1512008 06t2212006
0410712008
MCo86798 MC086799 MC086800
MC0868ll
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON 6'{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

January 18,2012 Page 6 Memorandum Regarding Reporting and lnvestiqation of Claims to United States Citizenship Memorandum Regarding Superseding Guidance on Reporting and lnvestigation of Claims to United States Citizenship Memorandum Regarding Superseding Guidance on Reporting and lnvestigating Claims to United States Gitizenshio mmgrat''on nd Gustoms Enforcement Office of Detention and Removal Operations (lCE/DRO) Field Guidance for the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 ITVPRAI
MC086812 MC086813
05t2312008
07t'1812008
MCo86814
MC086815
1t106/2008
MC086816
MCo86817
04/06/2009
MC086818
MC086822
Provide all documents relating to MCSO officer arrests, including but not limited to, arrest reports, blotter, entries, incident reports, arrest warrants and supporting to materials, booking logs, patrol logs, radio logs, videotapes and any other documents related arrests by MCSO officer from January 1, 2008 to the present'
34.
supplemental Response: see attached cD-Rom, specifcally the following

documents:
INCIDENT 09-019230, 09-019317. 09-019424, 09-019431. REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE
0210112009 02t0112009 02t0112009 0210112009
0210112009
District I District I District 1 District I 09-019530, District I 09-019618, District I 09-019690, District 1 09-019718. District I 09-019764, District 1 09-019830. District I 09-020100. District 1 09-020206, District I 09-020254. District I 09-020313, District I 09-020466. District I 09-020463. District I 09-020542. District I 09-020565. District I 09-020583. District I 09-020614, District I 09-020724. District f 0S-020726. District I 09-020807. District I 09-020860, District I Dlstrict I
BEG NO MC086823 Mco86837

MC086850 MC086861 MCo86890 MC086898 MC086903 MC086931 MC086943 MCo86949 MC086956
END NO MC086836 MC086849 MC086860 MC086889 MC086897
02t0112009 02t0112009 02t0212009

0210212009
MC086902
MCo86930 MC086942 MC086948
02t0212009 02t0212009 0210212009 o2t0212009

0210312007
MCo86955
MC086961
MC086962
MC086970 MC086982 MCo86988 MC086999 MC087016
MCo86969
MC086981 MC086987
02t0312009
02/03/2009 02/03/2009
02t0312009
MCo86998 MC087015
MC087021
MCo87022
MC087030 MCo87046 MC087052 MG087066 MCo87067 MG087074
02r03/2009 02/03/2009 02/03/2009

0210312009
MC087029 MC087045
MC087051
02/03/2009 02/03/2009 02r03/2009
MC087065 MC087066 MC087073

MG087076
MC087077
MC087087
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P'L'C'

January 18,2012 PageT District I District I District I District I District I District I District I District I oi-azlfia, District I 09-021502, District I 09-021530. District I 09-021580, District I Og-0ZtSt. District 1 09-021635, District I District I -09-021658. District I 09-021695. 0g-0ZlZ3O, District I OgZtggg. District 1 09-022002, District I 09-022002. District I 09-022068, District I 09-022132. District I os-O22263. District 1 09-022382, District I 09-022450, District I O9-022484, District I OSOZZSS. District I 09-022549, District I 09-017068. District I os-O22703. District I OS-OZZI9. District I 09-022743, District I 09-022765. District I 09-022796. District I 09-022823. District I 09-022939. District I District I -09-023020. District I 09-023042. 09-023221. District I 09-023316, District I Og-OZ3ggS, District I 09-023398. District I 09-023493. District I 09-023594. District I 09-023606. District I 09-023633. District I 09-023881, District I
09-020978, 09-020998, 09-021153, 09-021190, 09-021285, 09-021396. 09-021343,
uv-uv+vr lJlllt l'
-1 -.4^ ! n:--:-
ra
NC ID ENT RE PORT N
O'DISTRIGT
DATE
0210312009 02t0412009
0210412009 0210412009 0210412009 0210412009
09-020967. -I
BEG NO MC087088 MCo87089 MCo87094

MC087098 MC087l I I
END NO MC087088 MC087093 MC087097
MC087ll0 MC087ll6
MC087121 MC087126 MC087196 MC087209 MC087214 MC087219 MCo87235 MCo87259 MCo87268
MC087ll7
0210412009 0210412009 02t0412009
lt[i0,087122 MC087127 MG087197 MC087210 0210412009 02t0412009 MC087215 0210412009 MG087220 02r05/2009 MCo87236 MC087260 0210412009 MCo87269 0210512009 0210512009 MC087273 02/05/2009 MC087290
0210512009
MC087272
MC087289 MC087294 MC087298 MC087315 MC087332 MCo87336 MCo87360 MC087371 MC087375 MC087381 MC087397 MC087400 MC087403 MC087427 MCo87432
MC087295
MCo87299 MC087316 MCo87333 MC087337 MCo87361
02r05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009

0210612009
02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009

02/0612009
MCo87372
MC087376 MC087382 MCo87398 MCo87401 MGo87404 MC087428 MCo87433 MC087445 MC087457 MC087463 MC087468 MC087482 MCo87493 MC087505 MC087512 MC087526 MC087570 MC087583 MC087609 MC087618 MCo87621
MC087444
MCo87456 MC087462 MC087467 MCo87481 MC087492 MCo87504
02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009

0210712009
0210712009 0210712009 0210712009

0210712009
MC0875ll
MCo87525 MCo87569 MG087582 MG087608 MC087617 MC087620 MC087623 MCo87655 MCo87661
0210712009 0210712009 0210712009
02/08/2009
02/0812009
02/08/2009
0210812009 rlrfio ttfl v -t vet -- -+
MC087624
MGo87656
tJ!G08?662
Me087673
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON 6{, HOCHULI, P.L.C'

January 18,2012 Page
INCDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT
09-023988, District 09-024089. District

09-024147, District 09-024292. District
I
I
09-024349, District I 09-024360. District I 09-024507, District I 09-024511. District I 09-023628, District I 09-023640. District I 09-024696, District I 09-024750, District I 09-024803, District I 09-024809. District I 09-025007. District I 09-025037, District 1 os-o2sozg. District I 09-025085, District I 09-025098, District I 09-025231, District I 09-025240, District I
09-025247, District 0g-0ZS3ee, District
OSO2SZS.
DATE 02/08/2009 02/09/2009 02r09/2009 02/09/2009 02/09t2009 02/09/2009

0210212009
BEG NO
MC087674 MCo87679 MC087693 MC087697
MC0877ll
MC087722
02r09/2009 02/08/2009 02/08/2009
09-024911, District
MC087740 MC087747 MCo87752 MC087759 0211012009 MC087766 0211012009 MC087785 02t1012009 MCo87789 MC087795 0211012009 o211012009 MCo87804
0211012009
MC0878ll
MC087818 MC087820 MC087840 MCo87847 MC087853 MCo87867 MG087868 MCo87877
02r10t2009
0211012009 0211012009 o2t1012009 02t1012009 0211012009 0211012009 ozt1'112009 02t1112009 0211112009 02111/,2009
I
1
District I 09-025447, District I 09-025504. District I 09-025604. District I 09-025638. District I 09-025677, District I Og-OZSegZ, District I 09-025764. District 1 09-025793, District I 09-025891, District I 09-025947, District 1 09-025989, District I 09-025954, District I 09-025969. District I 09-025980, District I 09-026149, District I 09-026205. District 1 09-026404. District I 09-026456. District I Og-OZSe. District I 09-026514, District I 09-026536. District I 09-026616, District 1
MCo8788t
MC087885 MC087891 MCo87897 MCo87901 MC087908 MC087915 MCo87926 MC087929 MC087931 MCo87943 MCo87967 MC087970 MC087977 MCo87981 MCo87989 MC087993 MCo88005 MC088009 MC088016 MC088022 MC088025 MC088041 f,lt1nennr.q
o2t1112009
02t1112009 02111t2009
ozt1112009
0211112009 o2t1112009 0211112009
ozt1112009 02t1112009
o2t1112009 0211112009 0211212009 0211212009 02t1212009 0211212009
02t1212009 ozt1212009
02t1212009 02t1112009 02r1312009
v 1t avt vvv
END NO MCo87678 MCo87692 MC087696 MC087710 MC087721 MCo87739 MC087746 MC087751 MC087758 MCo87765 MCo87784 MC087788 MC087794 MC087803 MC087810 MC087817 MC087819 MCo87839 MCo87846 MCo87852 MCo87866 MC087867 MCo87876 MCo87880 MCo87884 MC087890 MC087896 MC087900 MCo87907 MC087914 MCo87925 MCo87928 MC087930 MC087942 MCo87966 MCo87969 MC087976 MC087980 MC087988 MCo87992 MC088004 MCo88008 MC088015 MC088021
MCo88024
MCo88040
MCo88044
MC088049
^tt/,.r.It^ô
2723074.1
P'L'C' JONES, SKELTON 6{- HOCHULI,

IIEJT'FNT REPORT NO/DISTRICT
DATE
0211312009 02t1312009 02t1312009 0211312009 02t1312009
BEG NO
MCo88050 MC088067 MC088105
09-026652, District I 09-026717, District I 09-027107, District I 09-027115. District I 09-027122, District I 09-027201. District I 09-027327, District I 09-027313, District I 09-027464, District I 09-027866, District I 09-0ZZg9, District I 09-027979. District I 09-028132, District I
END NO MC088066 MC088104 MC088109
MC088ll0
MC088117 MC088122 MC088128 MC088135 MC088137 MC088178 MC088186 MC088201 MC088218 MC088223 MC088228 MC088247 MC088269 MC088275 MC088320 MC088337 MC088341
MC088ll6
MC088121 MC088127 MC088134 MCo88136 MCo88177 MCo88185 MCo88200 MCo88217
I'1iC088222
02t1312009
0211312009 0211312009 0211912009 o2t1412009 0211312009 0211412009 02114/,200s 0211512009 0211412009 0211512009 0211512009 0211512009
ogozt. District I 09-028069, District 1 09-028430. District 1 09-028432. District I 09-028458, District I 09-028633, District I O+OZAStS. District I 09-028891, District I Og-OZgf SZ, District I 09-029156, District 1
O9-OZgg0 Dstrict
ozt1512009
0211512009 o211512009 02t1612009
[nCOsASSs
MC088360 MC088370 MC088376 MG088390 MC088403 MC088410 MC088417 MCo88423 MCo88428 MCo88442 MC088449 MCo88453 MC088456 MC088464 MC088473 MC088479 MC088490 MC088502 MC088507 MCo88520 MC088526 MCo88569 MC088576
02I16/2009
0211612009 0211612009
os-029S9. District
ffi
I District I 09-029418,
09-029602, District og-0zgezz. District 09-029900, District
OS-OOZ.
02/16/2009
I
1
l02r17r20oe
0211712009 0211712009 0211712009 0211812009 0211812009 0211812009 0211812009 0210412009 0211812009
District I 09-030273, District I Og-OgOZgO. District I 09-030352, District 1 og-osogsg, District 1 09-030537, District I 09-030t-l3, District I 09-030629. District I 09-030625, District I os-0so6sg. District I 09{30643, Dstrict I og430tze. District I 09-030912, District 1 OggOgtZ. District I 09-030952. District I OggOgZS. District I 09-030982. District I
vv-vgvgvvr esr rv '
02t1912009
0211912009
02t1912009
02fi912009
02r1912009 0211912009 0211912009 0211912009 0211912009
MCo88227 MCo88246 MCo88268 MC088274 MCo88319 MCo88336 MCo88340 MCo88354 I MC088359 MCo88369 MCo88375 MC088389 MC088402 MCo88409 MC088416 MC088422 MC088427 MC088441 MCo88448 MCo88452 MCo88455 MCo88463 MCo88472 MC088478 MCo88489 MCo88501 MC088506 MCo88519 MCo88525 MC088568 MCo88575 MC088581
02/19/2009
ozt1912009 rtrO v t a et 4999
^r,l
Meo88582
MC088602
f,rnneQAOR
MGo8860f
MC088607 !u!c0EE6'!4
27230'4.r
JONES, SKELTON 6'{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT 09-031114. District 1 09-031142, District 1 09-031182. District I 09-031266, District 1 09-031290. District I 09-031344, District I 09-031323. District I 09-031749, District I 09-031763. District I 09-031846, District I 09-031923. District I 09-031930, District 1 09-031956. District 1 09-031991, District I 09-032061. District 1 09-032196, District 1 09-032294. District I 09-032314. District 1 09-032370, District I
09-032454. District DATE
0211912009
BEG NO MCo88615
MC088622 MC088626
02t19r2009 01/30/2009
02t20t2009 02t20t2009
02t2012009
MC088644
MC088649
MC088657
MC088662 MC088667 MCo88673 MCo88689 MCo88700 MC088710
02t20t2009 02t20t2009
0212012009
o2t20t2009
0212112009
o2t2'1t2009
02t21t2009
02t2112009
0212112009 0212112009 0212112009
MC088732
MCo88753
MC088762
MC088773 MC088778 MCo88788 MC088793 MC088819 MC088823 MC088833
02t2112009 02t2112009
0212112009 o2t2'112009
09-032470, District 09-032528. District 09-032543, District 09-032563. District 09-032606. District 09-032656, District 09-032676. District
09-032714, District
I I I
1 1
02t2112009
02t21t2009
0212112009
MC088844
MG088846 MC088861
I
I
1
02t2112009 02t2212009
0212212009
MC088867 MC088877
MG088884 MC088901 MC088910
o2t22t2009
0212212009 o212212009 0212212009 0212212009 0212212009
09-032807. District I 09-032945. District 1 09-032996. District I 09-033020, District I 09-033139. District I 09-033177, District I 09-033545. District I 09-033697, District 1 09-033808. District I 09-033809, District I 09-033820. District I 09-033950, District I 09-033956. District I 09-034012, District I 09-034072, District I 09-024507, District I
09-031468.
ozt2212009 02t2312009 ozt2312009 02t2312009

o212312009 0212312009 0212312009
MC088922 MCo88929 MC088947 MC088950

MC088956
MC088979
MG088984
MC088990 MC088995 MC089002

MC089011
02t2412009 02t2412009
MC089018
MC089023
02t24t2009
02t2512009
0212412009
MC089033
MG089049
District I 09-034558, District I 09-034565, District 1

^t EE h:-4-:^6 ,
02t2412009
02t24r2009
4V Vt v 4! 4-a ^rl.rAltllllo
MC089058 MC089067
END NO MCo88621 MC088625 MC088643 MC088648 MC088656 MCo88661 MC088666 MCo88672 MG088688 MCo88699 MC088709 MC088731 MC088752 MC088761 MC088772 MCo88777 MC088787 MC088792 MC088818 MCo88822 MC088832 MCo88843 MC088845 MC088860 MC088866 MC088876 MC088883 MC088900 MC088909 MC088921 MC088928 MC088946 MCo88949 MC088955 MCo88978 MC088983 MCo88989 MC088994 MCo89001 MC089010 MC089017 MG089022 MC089032 MCo89048 MC089057 MC089066 MC089082
renRqnRT
l'nnnqnR?
27230't4.1
JONES, SKELTON
January 18,2012 Page 1l
INCIDENT 09-034640. 09-034654. 09-034698. 09-034789. 09-035116, 09-035380. 09-035385, 09-035416. 09-035428. 09-035768. 09-035782, 09-035856, 09-036038, 09-036052, 09-036087, 09-036504. 09-036504. REPORT NO/DISTRICT
&
HOCHULI, P.L.C.
DATE
02124t2009
0212412009 0210412009 0212512009
BEG NO
MC089088 MC089109
District I District I District 1 District I District I District I District I District I District 1 District I District I District I District I District I District I District I District I 09'036506. District I 09-036617, District I 09-036638, District I 09-036743, District I 09-036745, District { 09-036850, District I 09-036920. District I 09-037057, District I 09-037089, District I 09-037208. District I 09-037288, District I 09-037342, District I 09-037398, District I 09-037415. District I 09-021606, District 2 09-021668, District 2 09-021786, District 2 09-021798. District 2 09-021883, District 2 09-021889. District 2 09-021988, District 2 09-022110, District 2 09-022277. District 2 09-022281, District 2 09-022317. District 2 09-022343, District 2 09-022571. District 2 09-022862. District 2 09-022938. District 2 09-023044. District 2
END NO MC089108
MC089ll3
MC089117 MG089124 MC089281 MC089287 MC089299 MC089326 MC089351 MC089358 MC089369 MC089392 MC089396 MC089409 MC089415
MCo89114
MC0891
l8
0212s12009 02t2612009 02t2612009
02t26t2009
0212612009 0311112009 0212612009 0212712009 0212712009
02t2712009 02t2712009
0212712009
MC089125 MC089282 MC089288 MC089300 MC089327 MC089352 MCo89359 MC089370 MC089393 MCo89397 MC089410
MG0894{6
MC089421 MCo89426 MC089465 MC089480 MC089492 MCo89515 MC089520 MC089527
Mc089420
MC089425 MCo89464 MC089479 MC089491 MC089514 MC089519 MCo89526 MC089553 MC089558 MCo89562 MC089574 MC089578 MC089s88 MC089592 MC089594 MCo89606
02t2712009
0212712009 0212712009 0212712009 0212712009 0212712009
02t2812009 02t2812009
0212812009
MCo89554
MC089559 MC089563 MC089575
02t2812009
0212812009 o212812009 0212812009
MC089579
MC089589 MC089593 MCo89595
02t2812009 02t2812009 02t0412009
02/05/2009 02/05/2009
02t0512009 02t0512009 02t0512009
MC089607
MC089612
MCo896ll
MCo89614 MC089616 MC089628 MCo89661 MCo89674 MC089676 MC089694 MC089696 MC089700 MC089716 MC089719 MC089742 MCo89762 MCo89764 [rrnRqTAA
MC089615
MC089617 MC089629
02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009

02/0612009
MCo89662 MC089675
MC089677
MC089695 MCo89697
MC089701
02/06/2009 02/06/2009
02t0712009 o2t0712009
MCo89717
MC089720
MC089743
MCo89763
trrvvvv.
ârr^7rtô
vLtvt tLvg!
irfiaoTaE vv
27230't4.1
JONES, SKELTON 6L HOCHULI, P'L'C'

January L8,2012 Page 12
INCIDENT 09-023276. 09-023380. 09-023506. 09-023524, 09-023600. 09-023610. 09-023636, 09-023769. 09-023801, 09-024005. 09-024075, 09-024081. 09-024378. 09-024626, 09-024637, REPORT NO/DISTRICT DATE
02t0712009 02t0712009 02t0712009 02t0712009
BEG NO
MCo89767 MCo89770 MC089772 MCo89833 MC089836 MCo89851 MC089865 MCo89868 MCo89875 MC089878 MC089881
District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 District 2 Og-OZSOeg, District 2 09-025176, District 2 09-025519, District 2 09-025754, District 2 g-ozs88l, District 2 09-026278. District 2 09-026324. District 2 09-026427, District 2 09-026137, District 2 09-026646. District 2 09-026508. District 2 09-026560, District 2 09-026613, District 2 09-026871, District 2 09-026894. District 2 09-027147, District 2 OS.O2fieg. District 2 09-027355, District 2 09-027461. District 2 09-027608, District 2 09-027731, District 2 09-027975, District 2 OSOZSO6O. District 2 09-028140, District 2 09-028333. District 2 09-028378. District 2 District 2 -09-028381. District 2 09-028386. 09-028419, District 2 09-028528, District 2 09-028577, District 2 09-028579. District 2
UV-uo(,gvt lJlll IU3
02/08/2009 02/08/2009 02/09/2009

02/0812009
02/08/2009 02/08/2009 02/09/2009 02/09/2009

02109r2009
END NO MCo89769 MC089771 MC089832 MCo89835 MC089850 MC089864 MC089867 MC089874 MGo89877 MCo89880 MC089883
MC089884
Mc089886
MCo89900 MCo89902 MC089915 MC089933 MC089945 MG089956 MC089962 MCo89979 MCo89983 MCo89992 MC090054 MC090056 MC090058 MC090062 MC090085 MCo90097 MC090100 MG090108
MCo89887 02/09/2009 MC089901 02/09/2009 MC089903 02/10/2009 MC089916 0211012009 MG089934 02t1112009 MGo89946 0211112009 MC089957 0211112009 MGo89963 02t1212009 MC089980 0211212009 MC089984 0211212009 MCo89993 0211212009 MC090055 0211312009 MCo90057 0211212009 MC090059 MC090063 0211212009 0211312009 MC090086 02t1312009 MC090098
0211312009 0211312009
MC090l0l
MC090109 MC090116
MC090l
l5
02r131200s
0211312009 0211412009 0211412009 0211412009 0211412009 0211412009 0211412009 0211412009
MC090ll8
MC090122 MC090125 MC090128
MC090l3l
MC090134
MC090140 MG090145
MC090117 MC090121 MC090124 MC090127 MC090130 MC090133 MC090139
MC090144
MGo90146 MC090148 MC090190 MC090193 MC090196 MC090198 MG090225 MCo90228
02t1512009
0211512009
MC090147
MCo90149 MC090191
02t1512009 o2t1512009
0211512009
MC090194
MC090197 MC090199
02t1612009
0211512009
MCo90226
^rl
Er,l^lo
rrf-nontto
r,lnnqt
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

!NCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT 09-028742. District 2 09-028910, District 2 09-028911, District 2 09-029353. District 2 09-029081, District 2 09-029353. District 2 09-029362, District 2 09-029386. District 2 09-029420, District 2 09-029446. District 2 09-029452, District 2 09-029511. District 2 09-029583, District 2 09-029764. District 2 09-029965, District 2 09-030031, District 2 09-030189, District 2 09-030442, District 2 09-030555, District 2 09-030637, District 2 09-030645. District 2 09-030864, District 2 09-031204. District 2 09-031233, District 2 09-031248. District 2
09-031277, District 2 DATE 02t1512009 02t1612009 02t2312009 02t1612009
0211612009 0211612009
BEG NO
MC090244 MGo90247 MC090250 MC090285 MC090306 MC090309 MC090337 MC090339 MC090342 MC090356 MC090359 MCo90363 MC090366 MC090376 MC090391 MC090394 MC090397 MCo90403 MC090412 MC090420 MC090430 MC090446 MC090456 MC090458 MC090460 MC090473 MCo90476 MCo90482 MC090488 MC090491 MCo90505 MC090508 MC090510 MC090520 MC090523 MC090526 MG090536 MC090538 MC090577 MC090584 MC090588 MC090613 MC090616 MC090619 MC090625 MC090627 MC090630
02t1612009 02t1612009 02t1612009

02r1712009
02t1712009
0211712009
02t1712009
0211812009 0211712009 0211812009
02t1812009
0211812009
END NO MC090246 MC090249 MC090284 MC090305 MC090308 MC090336 MC090338 MC090341 MC090355 MG090358 MC090362 MC090365 MC090375 MC090390 MC090393 MC090396 MC090402
MC0904ll
MC090419 MC090429 MC090445 MC090455 MCo90457 MC090459 MG090472 MC090475 MCo90481 MC090487 MC090490
02t1812009 02119t2009
0211912009 0211912009 0211912009
02t1912009 02119t2009
0212012009 0212012009
09-031531, District 2 09-031591, District 2 09-031916, District 2 09-031949. District 2 09-032033. District 2 09-032104. District 2 09-032390. District 2 09-032394. District 2 09-032399, District 2 09-032626. District 2 09-032638, District 2 09-032643, District 2 09-032927, District 2 09-032944, District 2 09-033141, District 2 09-033174, District 2 09-033272. District 2 09-033290, District 2 09-033300. District 2 09-033402. District 2 09-033422. District 2
Vt-VW99VVt Yastl lv -
02t2012009
0212012009
02t2112009
0212112009 0212112009
MCo90504
MC090507 MC090509 MC090519 MC090522 MC090525 MC090535 MCo90537 MC090576 MC090583 MC090587 MC090612 MC090615 MC090618 MG090624 MC090626 MC090629 MC090639
02t21t2009
0212112009 0212112009 0212112009
02t2112009
0212212009 0212212009
02t2212009
02t23t2009
02122t2009
0212312009
02123t2009
0212312009 0212312099 0212312009
^r1t'l^^
rrôftrll
irnonAQ?
2723074.1
JONES, SKELTON &. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

INGIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT 09-033851, District 2 09-033908, District 2 DATE
021231200s
09-033982. District 09-034001. District 09-034024. District 09-034308. District 09-034381. District 09-034675, District 09-034676. District 09-034716, District
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 09-034724, District 2 09-034735, District 2 09-034737, District 2 09-034738, District 2 09-034870. District 2 09-034912, District 2 09-034998. District 2 09-035010. District 2 09-035157. District 2 09-035173. District 2 09-035369, District 2 09-035420. District 2 09-035488, District 2 09-035534. District 2 09-035639, District 2 09-035884. District 2 09-036057, District 2 09-036070. District 2 09-036257, District 2 09-036391. District 2 09-036443, District 2 09-036578. District 2 09-036661. District 2 09-036765. District 2 09-036991. District 2 09-037192, District 2 09-037284. District 2 09-037316. District 2 09-037396. District 2 09-037487, District 2 09-037604. District 2 09-019241, District 6 09-019428. District 6 09-019432, District 6 09-019726, District 6 09-020378, District 6 09-020724, District 6
^^ ^^^^^ :-4-:-4
02t23t2009 02t24t2009
0212412009 0212412009
BEG NO MC090684 MC090687 MCo90689 MC090703 MC090706 MC0907r9

MC090723 MCo90725 MC090728 MC090731 MCo90734 MC090739 MC090750 MC090759 MC090767 MCo90771 MC090776 MC090778 MC090781 MCo90787 MC090807 MC090819 MCo90831 MC090833 MC090837 MCo90839 MC090859 MCo90923 MC090951 MC090954 MCo90956 MC090960 MC090967 MCo90992 MC091006 MC091058 MC091070 MC091089
END NO MC090686 MC090688 MCo90702 MC090705
MC0907r8
MCo90722 MC090724 MCo90727 MC090730 MCo90733 MCo90738 MC090749 MCo90758 MCo90766 MC090770 MCo90775 MC090777 MC090780 MC090786 MCo90806 MC090818 MC090830 MCo90832 MC090836 MC090838 MC090858 MCo90922 MC090950 MC090953 MCo90955 MC090959 MC090966 MC090991 MC091005 MG091057 MC091069 MCo91088 MC091090 MC091093 MC091095
02t24t2009
0212412009 0212512009
02t25t2009
02t2512009 02t2512009 02t2512009 02t2512009
02t25t2009
02t2512009
o212512009
02t2s12009
0212512009 0212512009
02t2512009 02t2612009
0212612009
02t26t2009
0212612009
02t26t2009
02t2612009
02t28t2009
0212712009
02t2712009 02t2712009 02t2712009

0212712009
03/05/2009
0212712009
02128t2009
03/01/2009
02t2812009
02t28t2009
0212812009
MG09t09l
MC091094 MC091096 MC091101 MC091105
02t2812009 02t2812009
0210112009
02t01t2009 ozt01t2009 02t01t2009 02/03/2009 02t03r2009

^4tÂt4^^
MC09ll00 MC09ll04 MC09ll08

MC091120
MC09ll09
MC09l
l2l
tl C.A
MC09ll34
MC091158
MC09ll35 MC09ll59
^t\Ôtl
MC09ll63
itflno4 4 ae
2723074.t
JONES, SKELTON &" HOCHULI, P.L.C.

INCIDENT REPORT NO/DISTRICT 09-021149, District 6 09-021153. District 6 09-021276, District 6 09-021244, District 6 09-021371. District 6 09-021455, District 6 09-021492, District 6 09-021547, District 6 09-021616. District 6 09-021936, District 6 09-021952. District 6 09-021970, District 6 09-022207. District 6 09-022208. District 6 09-022525, District 6 09-022679. District 6 09-022857, District 6 09-022858. District 6 09-023602, District 6 09-023753. District 6 09-023831, District 6 09-023835. District 6 09-024822. District 6 09-025175. District 6 DATE 01t07t2009
0210412009
BEG NO MC091169
MC09lr93
MC091208
ozt0412009
0210412009 0210412009
MC091221
MC091233
END NO MC09,l192 MC091207 MC091220 MC091232 MCo91239
02t0412009
02t14t2009
0210412009
MCo91240 MC091272
MC091336 MC091341
MC09l27l
MC09r335
MC091340 MC091356 MCo91368 MC091384 MC091398 MC091402 MC091406 MC091425 MC091441 MC091452 MC091484 MC091505
02/05/2009
0210512009
MC091357
MCo91369 MC091385
02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/05/2009 02/06/2009 02/06/2009

02t0612009 0210712009
MC091399
MC091403
02/06/2009 02/08/2009 02/08/2009 02/08/2009

02t0812009 02t1012009 0211012009 0211012009
0211112009
MC091407 MC091426 MC091442 MC091453 MCo91485

MCo91506
MC09l513
MC091528 MC091536 MC091560 MC091569 MC091590 MC091596
MG09l5l4
MC091529 MC091537
MC09l56l
MC091570
09-025493, District 6
09-025757. District 6
MC09l59{
MC091597 MCo91603 MC091607 MC091633
09-025920, District 6 09-025939, District 6 09-025947, District 6

09-026161. District 6
ozt1112009
02t1112009 02t1112009 0211212009
MG09r602
MG091606 MC091632 MC091650 MC091683 MC091697 MC091715 MC091747 MC091750 MC091760 MC091765 MC091788 MC091807 MC091815
09-026209. District 6
09-026271, District 6
ozt12t2009
02r1212009 02t1212009 0211212009 0211112009 02113t2009 0112812009
MC09t65l
MC091684 MC091698 MCo91716 MC091748
MC091751 MCo91761
09-026304. District 09-026385, District 09-026539. District 09-026642, District 09-027020. District
6
6 6 6 6 6
09-027412, District 09-027436, District 6 09-027820, District 6
02t1412009
02t1412009
02t1412009
0211512009
09-028406. District 09-028663, District 09-028675. District 09-028681, District 09-028942, District 09-028970. District 09-029487, District
6
6
02t15t2009
02t1512009
6
6
02t15t2009
02t1612009
6
6
02t16t2009 02t17t2009
^ rt ,ofiat
MCo91766 MC091789 MC091808 MC091816 MC091839 MC091846 MC091850 MC091856 MC091879 MC091886
rl^fl,1 lravvg
MC09r838
MC091845 MC091849 MC09f 855 MC091878 MG091885 MC091897 itl1nq4 qnq
QQ vvv
2723074.r
JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

R'LN8I!SIB!C'[ District 6 09-030097, 09-030174. District 6 09-030347, District 6 09-030358. District 6 09-030993. District 6 09-03{211. District 6 09-031295, District 6 09-031493. District 6 09-031935, District 6 09-031952. District 6 09-031977, District 6 09-032680. District 6 09-032750, District 6 O+OSSZZ. District 6 09-033819, District 6 09-033959. District 6 09-034060, District 6 09-034136. District 6 09-034357, District 6 09-034373. District 6 09-034656. District 6 09-034701, District 6 09-034723, District 6 09-034820, District 6 F-os5zzs, District 6 09-035225, District 6 09-035365. District 6 09-035416, District 6 09-035487. District 6 09-036097, District 6 District 6 -09-036331. District 6 09-036375, 09-036812. District 6 09-036874, District 6 09-036878. District 6 09-036914, District 6 09-037125, District 6
I
CIDE NT REPO
DATE 02t18t2009
0211812009
BEG NO MC091910
END NO
MC09l9l6
MC091919 MC091946 MC091964 MC091970 MC091985 MGo91994 MCo92001 MC092016 MC092042 MC092059 MG092073 MCo92099
MC09l9l7
MC091920 MC091947 MC091965
MC09'1971
02r18t2009
0211812009
02t1912009 02t1912009
02n91200s
0212012009
o2t2112009
0212112009 0212112009
02t2212009
0212212009 0212312009
MC091986 MG091995 MC092002 MC092017 MC092043 MCo92060 MC092074 MC092100
02t2312009
0212412009 0212412009
MC092ll4
MC092120 MC092139 MC092144 MCo92150 MCo92175 MC092178 MC092184 MC092201 MC092215
MC092tl3 MC092ll9
MC092138 MC092143 MC092149
01109/2009
0212412009 o212412009 0212412009 0212512009
MC092174
MC092177 MC092183 MC092200
02t2512009 02125t2009
0212512009 0212512009 0212612009
c092214 MC092221
MC092227
MC092222 MCo92228
MC092243 MC092257 MC092280
MCo92242
MC092256 MCo92279 MCo92303 MC092316 MG092324 MC092352 MC092369 MC092381 MC092390 MC092396
02126t2009
0212612009 0212712009
MC092304
MG092317
o2t2712009
0212712009 0212812009 0212812009 o212812009 0212812009 0212712009
MC092325
MC092353 MC092370 MG092382 MCo92391 MC092397
MG092422
to the The documents and information contained in this letter are fully responsive the emails we 1, 20tI and requests you made in our telephone conversation of December please provide written notification to me on that same date. If you disagree, "*hung" identifying any perceived def,rciency' immediately
2723074-t
JONES, SKELTON
l HOCHULI,
P.L.C.
Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. Please call with any
questions or comments.
JJPisss
Enclosures
cc:
Amin Aminfar, Esq.

Sergio Perez, Esq. Kavitha Sreeharsha, Esq.
27230'14.1
EXHIBIT
ffiffiDIT{ffiffiffiruS
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
ounded 1890 D A Gannett
PAGE
86 .,
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC
OPINIONS.AZCENTRAL.COM
nespper D lncorporting
The Phnixcaette
EUGENE C. PULLIA.M
1889.1975
JOHN. ZIDICH
C@rdh!ilhq
Publkhq
19'16-1975
Edtrals represent the opnon ofthe newspaper, whosEditoral Eoard conssts 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
HE ISSUE: JUSTICE DEPT. vS. JOE ARPAIO
HOIVSTROI\G
ISF'EDS'CASE?
T
'tr sweeps,"MaricopaCounty Sheriff Joe.{rpaio has mocked human rights; trampled, oxlike, over at least two provisions of the
U.S. Constitution; wasted scarce county resources; and helped mke Arizona the focus of world-
f /\/ VY
7 ith his patently political

"crime-suppression
against Arpaio really is. On Wednesday, Arpaio's lawyers rsponded tq. the.Justice letter with a 37-page demand for details about the allegations cited
b Perez. A lot of it is bluster and lawyerly posturing, of course. But much of what the lawyers seek
.r
wide derision.
Butwithhisprogramidehtify-
ing suspected illegal immigrants in county jails, an operation conduted under federal authority, Arpaio has done none of those things. In fact, the program sinc its inception in 2007 has identified more than 44,000 people in this country illegaliy. Conducted by authority of U,S. Immigration Customs.Enforcemnt's 287(g) jail model agreement, the Maricopa County operation has been . the inost succesful jail-interdiction effort in the nation. Far and
.away.
jails. But neitherthe Justice Department nor Napolitao addressed any issues directly related to Arpaio's administration of the 287(9) agreement in the jils. If there is a problem with that pioeram, wht is it? Napolitano's decision, coupled with the Justice Department's behavior since Assistant Attorney General Thomas Peez released his 22-page complaint, is beginning to raise.some concerns about just how strong the federal case
Yet almost furmediately after theU.S. Justice Department levled its racial-profilig allgations against Arpaib in December, Janet Napolitano, scrtary of Homeland Security, ended Arpaio's 287(g) authority, too. The DHS secretary and former Arizona governor cited no abuses irt her.agency's partnership with Arpaio as it pplied to the jail program. She simply cited.the Dee. 15 complaint, which numerated serious concerns witJr Apaio's sweeps, as well as susected human-rights abuses in his
'
to see it.
sixth term as sheriff. Obviously, Arpaio has no plans to quietly resign or to sign an oversight agreement that effectively would cede maagement of his offie over to the fes. A cleaer understandig of the case against him might convtce the sheriff rtherrpise. We aII want.
as serious.as racial profiling must proue racial profiling. Who are the experts? What data did they analyze? Without speiific details, there is nothilg to counter.Arpaios claim tht he is merely being persecuted by the Justice Deparnent and the Obama administratio. Indeed, Arpaio already is using the accusations as a launching pad for his
are perfectly legitimate questions that we would like answered. . For examle, what are the data underlying the federal claim. that Arpaio's deputies have racially profiled Hispanics? Perez is not mking some vague, "I.know it when I see it" argumeht. He claims that a statistical Study commissioned by Justice found that Arpaio's dputies stopped Latino drivprs "four to nine times" as ofteri as n<in-Hispanic drivers. Perez.cites as authrities four police executives, a correctional exprt, a jail and prison auditor anda statistician. He said the expert on racial profiling retained by the Justice Department viewed Arpio's actioDs as "the most egregious raiial profiling" he had ever seen. As much as we suspC Arpaio has made hash of civil rights with his abominable swees, that doesn't change the fact that a federal cse alleging somethingi
'
Opinions
TypeSzo:AAA
. @r* . @l e..r
. @l rostpopul", aC
,[-l
OO'" race clams are, atas, weak

by Robe'f Rohb, columnist - Dec. 21, 2011 12:00 AM
The Azona Republic
.'"'-- '.---'""
;;".;;.;
---- i I
sign up to see wht vour friends remmend'
: .fu*g t9.
f---!
The most sensational allegation the Department of Justce has leveled against Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office is that Latinos are four to nine times more lkely to be subject to traffic stops than similarly situated non-Latino drivers.
It is also the most important allegation. lt appears to provide hard evidence n support of the general claim that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is guilty of systemic racial discrimination.
At this pont, however, the presumption has to be that the allegation is also based on iunk science, since the DOJ refuses to release the "statistical study" on which t is based. 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 stops to determine whether racal profiling is occurring.
How can the underlying data be nsuffcient to determine whether racial profiling is occurring, but suffcent to conclude that Arpaio's office racially profiles more than any
other law-enforcement agency n the country? The DOJ says the sheriffs ofce "frequently" arrests Latinos without cause. What consttutes "frequently"? The DOJ doesn't say.
How does the percentage of wrongful anests of Latinos compare with that of nonLatinos? The DOJ doesn't say. How does the record of the sheriffs office compare with that of other Valley law-enforcement agencies wth respect to wrongful arrests? The DOJ 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 to back up ts sweepng charges of pervasive racal discrimination. Arpaio, of course, contends that's because the issue isn't really racial discrimination. lfs an 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 Security strongly bolstered Arpao's argument when it rescinded the authoriztion for his office to access federal databases to check the mmigration status of those booked in the county
ails.
This is the one immigraton-enforcement program of Arpaio's that incontestably
http://www.azcenttal.comlafizonarepublic/opinions/articleslzIIltZl20l20lll220rcbbl2...
DOJ's race claims are, alas, weak
implemented in a racially neutral fashion. The immigration status of everyone booked is checked. The DOJ made no allegation that the sheriffs office was misusng this authority for discriminatory purposes. Arpaio's practice of checking lhe immigration status of everyone booked is now inconvenient and potentially embanassing to the obama admnistration, gven the administrative amnesty polcy t announced earler ths year. under that policy, only serious criminals are to be deported. Arpaio's office would be documenting the number of illegal immigrants accused of lesser violations the Obama administraton would be ignoring. After a widespread outcry, the DHS retreated a bit, sayng that lmmigration and Customs Enforcement would do the jal checks. This, of course, makes no sense. ICE is hghly unlikely to be as available to county prosecutors 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 beng booked into the jals. l've made it clear that I think Arpaio is running a rogue agency. That his baseless accusation of a vast criminal conspiracy involving county supervisors, senior county management and judges was an assault on the rule of law. And that his immigration sweeps violate fundamental American values and necessarily discrimnate against lawful Latinos. ln my book, Arpaio wears a very black hat, and it would be great if some good guys chased him out of town. At ths point, however, t's far from clear that the Obama administration is wearng the white hat in this story.
Re ach Ro b b at rob
e
7.
rob b@
riz.o n a rep u b I i c. co
m or
60 2444- 847 2.
Tvoe size: A A A
r l P!
Eg
. @ e."l . @l MostPooutar a-a
MORE FROM AZCENTRAL
MORE FROM THE WEB
sancloned (unt1.m I news) Details seeded about clams (azcntral.m Arizona Republc Front Page) Raole (azcentral.com I ua)
Motorcvcl? (txchnologst)
I
to lonore (Caring.com)
. .
Too Ten Flaws in FCC'S AT&T-Mobile Compettion Analvsis (Forbes.com) 10 Thinqs Still Made in Ameri (fhestreet)
(azntEl.m
Page)
Arizona Republic Front
SIUlCOll(azntEl.m
I news)
f,iNTT
MB
The tonE R!lc
A'
AI
IUE'V
AZ FACT CHECK R6rching qnd repoing the validiq
ofpolitiel
claims and key toPics.
Help us kp Aizon honst. hgk out the findinss.
http://www .azcentral.com/azonarepublic/opinions/articlesl}}Illl2l20l20lll220robbl2...
azcenftal.com - members
NEW SEARCH: Fnd artcles, photos, video
J,City orZIP
@
Welcome,
guestfi
resisterl@ "**
. Movies
|
Soos
Moncy
I rhn,ssro po t
I"ttpgru
| wcat's | crs I e* | no.c Phnir Pinal Sftsdrle
Today's SW
cat
Inf[g
sh.'pi'e I lohs I Gs
Archiv:
Homes
Rentls
I clrssificd
Ahwbk Cl'andlcr
Gilbr Cl6dle
Vller- Sur'risc Temoc
lroh
E.J. MONTINI'S COLUI\{NS & BI,OG

F,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 about the U.S. Department of Justice's complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the
feds... well... could care less. They ignore him Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Perez and Sheriff foe Arpaio toss accusations back and forth over the outstretched arms of Montgomery, treating him like an unwanted little brother in a game of keep-away.
If Montgomery were previous County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Arpaio's enabler, I'd understand iL And I get that the feds still might not trust Montgomery, a Republican who speaks openly about not liking President 0bama or his administration' There are reasons for those of us who live here to question Montgomery's judgment when it comes to other local scandals. He refused to prosecute any of theegislators who took tousands of dollars in gifu and free trips on the Fiesta Bowl dime, saying that state law was too vague. At the same time, he hasn't been out tJrere publicly beating the drum in support of legislative efforts to strengthen 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 but hasn'[ heard back For instance, he told me he was concerned about the iustice departrnent's claim that Arpaio's offce has no safeguards for protecting the rights of Latinos susPects.
"When I was campaigning for this offce I met with business and community leaders in the county, to include a number of different representatives from the Hispanic community," the county attorney told me, "l pledged that if I was successful I would work with the sheriffs ofce to insure tlat all the constitutional standards for a legitimate prosecution would be met and I put those reviews in Place."
In addition to the mechanisms he has put into place, Montgomery points to the lengthy investigation by the Pinal County Sheriffs office into Arpaio's aef,arUnent, as well as to the departures of MCSO officials Dave Hedershott and Larry Black Montgomery in a letr asked the justice departrnent for information regarding alleged civil rights violations by MCSO from November 2010 to the presenL
He has not received a resPonse.
In addition, Montgomery disagrees with Perez's assertion that the D0f ,,is about ensuring that systems are in place to ensure that sex investigation crimes are fully investigated." Montgomery says those crimes are his responsibilities and his ofce is reviewing the MCSO cases in question, in addition to more than 2,000 other sex crime 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
azcenttal.com - members
r
mail reply that reads:
"ln
a letter to the Justice Deprtment, the County Attorney made clear does 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 stated in our findings, a court enforceable agreement is key in order fix the
that he
unconstitutional conduct by MCS0."
I'mnotsurewhatallthatmeans,exceptthatitdoesn'tansweranyquestions. Ishowedt}reDOJ'sresponsetoMontgomerywhoreplied,"Theystillhavenot
acknowledged my request for information regarding my ability, aside from MCS0 reprsentation, to review cases that DOI may be aware support teir claims."
this as A friend of mine from North carolina once described a predicament like
"too many dogs and not enough re hydrants."
TheDoJandthecountyattorneyshouldbeontlresameside.Ifthecountry
attorney has protections in place then the D0f should evaluate them and tell us part of if tf,u''i. adequa. tf they'r no fix tlem. If t1'ey are they could become problem' the "ourt enforceable agreement" the DOJ says is key to solving the political unless this isn,t about fixing a broken sheriffs office but about scoring points. In that case, the DOJ might win, or the county attorney might win' or Sheriff ArPaio might win. While all the rest of us lose.
(Column for tan.29,20LZ Arizona Republic)
Srudrt', Jdnr :9.

RcFod
1t: r, n,,=','nt
il
ml 'tmlsTs Mws Elfies M' mlnlcs
t Viohtion
Topla: M.TALK. ILIJCEDJ REP(I lc
LEAVEA COMMENT
blog mms will display, h switched to e Febook ment system on ib blogs. Ei-sting *ill only be acptvia r" .""bJok ^t"nt sysem To begin menting' you mut be tur"**"ns wlile l";;i;;;aci'.p"ooiu"*,rittiu"Jknvou'reloggedin'vouwillbesbleto@ment * i*-p*ur" ror rrrr mmens md abue of this privilege will w welme vou ro ro,n "onu.o"oonr,i-.-,i *ing or notifition, to remove ments od block uers ;"1;;,;;. ;;-;",";ir,ii,""t jg"Tr"" l,i,'iit"fitct ud Rul of dncaeemcnt Fa@book @mments FAo
ntrd.m
Coments Pofed via facebook
COMMENTS FROM
AZCENTRAL.COM USERS
RIIPUBT-lc c()l,ulNfsTs
Clrry ThotnPson
Robert lobb E,l N{ontini Lulic Robcrts Doug \lacEachcrrt Lirlrla Vnltlez
..iRtZO*.{ RlPtJBl.lC OPf r.-IONS Ilt 'O(;S
Editorial Blog
Knthlecn lnglcY Cindr l{ernltndcz If-{D Rloggcr Robcrf !-eger rtztlk r\ll Opinions Rlogs
LOG IN
http ://www .azcentral.com/members/blog/EJMontini/
153
806

Feb 1 Doj Letter

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Feb 1 Doj Letter

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Wrrum

iIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUE

(602) 263-1714 Fnx: (6021 200-7801 E-MArr: wJoNEs@Jsfl nRl.coM T.

WLffrN& LJI T HOCHULI,

Proru: (602) 263.1700 Fnx: (602) 651.7599

AND WASHINGTOil, D.C.

U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV 1 O- 10878-PHX-GMS

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

The DOJ's Refusal to P{qvide Facts is the Obstacle

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

The DOJ's Reliance OnMelendres And Other Litigation Is Misplaced

See20l1U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148223.

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

Media Reports Are Insufficient

See pg.2, paragraph Joseph J. Popolizio.

January 17,2012letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attorney

See pg.2, paragraph2 Joseph J. Popoiizio.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to attomey

& HOCHULI, P.L.C.

JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.

Mt. Perez,I can ommiserate regarding the

JONES, SKELTON 6l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.

I letter was a Letter of Findings

JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.

the Firm JJP/jan

TET.EPH0NE: (602) 263.1714 tnx: (602) 200-780,l E.MAtt: wJoNEs@JsHFlRM.coM

2901 llloRTtt Gel\rnnt Avrrrue SurrE 800

oENtx, ABlzollA 850 1 2 PHoNE: (6021 263.1700

E.MAII.: JMSTERSON@JSHf IBM.COM

AND WAsHtNcroN. D.C.

Mr. Avner ShaPiro

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the following

Internal Affairs Division Operational Manual, effective date 09/01

Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the following

il overtimef ayqen1lqlqlm EeIm

ffirm fhar (Juesfions for Suoolement

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

28. All current training

END NO MC086444 MC086455

MC086456 MC086493 MC086517 MC086519 MCo86536 MCo86538 MC086540

MC086492 MC086516 MC086518 MC086535 MCo86537 MC086539 MG086552

09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010 09/09/2010

MCo86574 09113t2010 MCo86576 MCo86601 09t1312010 09t1312010 MCo86603 MC086606

MCo86575 MC086600 MC086602 MC086605 MCo86607

MC086608 MC086610 MC086612 MC086614

JONES, SKELTON {" HOCHULI, P.L.C.

09/15/2010 09/15/2010 09/15/2010

MC086676 MC086695 MC086697 MCo86699 MC086701 MC086702 MG086704

MC086694 MC086696 MC086698 MC086700 MC086701 MC086703 MC086705

10t0412010 10124t2010 10t0412010

MCo86706 MC086710 MG086712

MC086709 MC086711 MG086713 MC086715 MG086743

10t0412010 10t0412010 10t0512010

09/08/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010

Supplemental Response: See attached CD-Rom, specifically the following

MG086766 MC086770 MC086773 MC086777 MCo86783 MC086784

MCo86798 MC086799 MC086800

JONES, SKELTON 6'{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.

supplemental Response: see attached cD-Rom, specifcally the following

BEG NO MC086823 Mco86837

END NO MC086836 MC086849 MC086860 MC086889 MC086897