Melendres Findings of Fact

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418 Telephone: (650) 632-4700 Facsimile: (650) 632-4800 Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice) syoung@cov.com Andrew C. Byrnes (Pro Hac Vice) abyrnes@cov.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on next page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS SD: 9355-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice) talbarran@cov.com Covington & Burling LLP 1 Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 Lesli Gallagher (Pro Hac Vice) lgallagher@cov.com Covington & Burling LLP 9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor San Diego CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 678-1800 Facsimile: (858) 678-1600 Dan Pochoda dpochoda@acluaz.org James Lyall jlyall@acluaz.org ACLU Foundation of Arizona 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376 Cecillia Wang cwang@aclu.org ACLU Foundation Immigrants Rights Project 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 Nancy Ramirez nramirez@maldef.org Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Anne Lai annie.lai@yale.edu 15 Lyon St. Fl. 2 New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 432-3928 Facsimile: (203) 432-1426
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Proposed findings of Fact......................................................................................... 1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Background Regarding the MCSO and HSU ............................................... 1 The MCSOS Focus On Immigration/Saturation Patrols ............................. 5 Saturation Patrols/Planning of Saturation Patrols ......................................... 8 Statements of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO Regarding Illegal Immigrations ............................................................................................... 13 Sheriff Arpaios Immigration File/Correspondence From Community Members.................................................................................. 14 Correspondence Requesting Specific MCSO Action/Saturation Patrols .......................................................................................................... 19 Focus of Saturation Patrols: Illegal Immigration ........................................ 23 Pretextual Stops During Saturation Patrols................................................. 25 MCSOs Purported Zero-Tolerance Policy ............................................. 26 MCSOs Use of Race/Hispanic Decent ...................................................... 28 MCSOs Lack of Racial Profiling Training ................................................ 28 Distribution of Discriminatory Emails Within MCSO ............................... 30 MCSOs Lack of Oversight ........................................................................ 31 Federal Funding .......................................................................................... 34 Actions of Arpaio and the MCSO Are Taken Under Color of Law ........... 35 Expert Opinions Regarding Discriminatory Effects ................................... 35 Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Ortega-Melendres ............................................ 40 Traffic Stop Involving Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez ......................................... 42 Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz ....................................... 44 Traffic Stop Involving Jerry Alfonso Cosio ............................................... 47 Traffic Stop Involving Julio and Julian Mora ............................................. 49
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T.
27 28
U.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
V. W. X. Y. Z.
Traffic Stop Involving Lorena Escamilla.................................................... 50 Traffic Stop Involving Daniel Magos ......................................................... 54 Traffic Stop Involving Adolfo Maldonado ................................................. 57 Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Villaman ..................................................... 58 Traffic Stop of Lino Garcia ......................................................................... 61
AA. Traffic Stop of David Vasquez ................................................................... 63 BB. Traffic Stop Involving Andrew Sanchez .................................................... 64 CC. Traffic Stop of Elaine Sanchez ................................................................... 66 DD. Traffic Stop of Garrett Smith ...................................................................... 67 EE. FF. Traffic Stop of Diona Solis and Jaime Florez Sanchez .............................. 69 Traffic Stop Involving Jorge Urteaga ......................................................... 71
GG. Traffic Stop of Leopoldo Arteaga ............................................................... 72 HH. Traffic Stop Involving Anabel Avitia ......................................................... 74 II. JJ. Traffic Stops Observed by Socorro Hernandez Bernasconi ....................... 76 Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Mueller Rangel ........................................... 79
KK. Traffic Stop Involving Tammy Charles Leija ............................................. 81 LL. II. III. Somos America ........................................................................................... 83
Adverse Inferences ................................................................................................. 84 Proposed Conclusions of Law ................................................................................ 84 A. B. C. D. E. F. Fourteenth Amendment Violations ............................................................. 84 Fourth Amendment Violations.................................................................... 92 Color of Law and Final Decision Maker .................................................... 97 Injunctive Relief .......................................................................................... 97 Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution .................................................. 98 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ..................................................... 99 ii
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I.
Proposed findings of Fact A. Background Regarding the MCSO and HSU
1.
The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) is a local law enforcement
agency that serves Maricopa County. 2. 3. Maricopa County occupies an area of approximately 9,200 square miles. 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 of
Chandler, 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 of
Buckeye, 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 Sun
City 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. 10. As of 2008, District 6 includes the Town of Queen Creek. District 7 includes the town of Fountain Hills and the unincorporated areas of
Fountain Hills, Tonto Verde and Rio Verde.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11.
Districts are generally staffed by a District Commander (Captain), Deputy
Commander (Lieutenant), uniformed sergeants and patrol deputies, detectives, and administrative staff. 12. 13. 14. The MCSO has concurrent jurisdiction with some cities. MCSO does not, however, have concurrent jurisdiction with Mesa. The MCSO is also responsible for patrolling the lakes and waterways in the
recreational 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 the
recreational and wilderness areas of the Maricopa County Parks. 16. The Aviation Division provides airborne law enforcement support to uniformed
patrol, 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 with
various specialties, including narcotics, explosive ordinance, cadaver, and patrol. 18. The MCSO has over 3500 employees, consisting of secretarial staff, detention
officers, and deputy sheriffs. 19. 20. The MCSO has over 800 deputies. In addition to paid employees, the MCSO also relies on some 2800 to 3000
posse members. 21. Posse members are volunteers who provide law enforcement services for little or
no compensation, under the supervision of an MCSO sergeant or lieutenant. 22. Some posse members are qualified to use firearms, and all serve in standard-issue
MCSO uniform alongside MCSO deputies. 23. Posse members operate marked MCSO vehicles while on duty.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
24.
Unlike paid law enforcement personnel and reserve deputies, posse members are
not 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 authority
over all of the agencys decisions. 26. 27. 28. Sheriff Arpaio sets the overall direction and policy for the MCSO. Sheriff Arpaio presides directly over a staff of some 15 to 20 members. Under the leadership of Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO has come to focus substantial
patrol and other resources to fight illegal immigration.
29. 2011. 30.
Deputy Chief David Hendershott was Arpaios second-in-command until April of
As Deputy Chief, Hendershott was responsible for supervising all of the MCSOs
operations, both on the enforcement and detention sides. 31. Chief Brian Sands is Chief of Enforcement and, until April of 2011, reported
directly to Deputy Chief Hendershott. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Paul Chagolla is a Deputy Chief of the MCSO. The enforcement command comprises two bureauspatrol and patrol resources. The patrol bureau handles standard patrol operations for the entire MCSO. The commander of the patrol bureau is Deputy Chief Frank Munnell. Chief Frank Munnell reports to Chief Brian Sands. The patrol resources bureau is responsible for court services, enforcement
support, the SWAT and K9 teams and the posse. 38. When the Arizona legislature passed the states human smuggling law in 2005, it
provided the MCSO with $1.6 million in funding for enforcement efforts. 39. In 2007, the MCSO created a specialized unit to enforce the human smuggling
law. This unit was initially called the Triple I Unit, which stood for illegal immigration interdiction, and eventually became the Human Smuggling Unit (HSU).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
40.
The HSU grew steadily in size from April 2006, when it consisted of two
deputies, 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. In
this 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 as
saturation patrols, working alongside ordinary deputies as well as posse members. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. The duty of the HSU is to enforce state immigration law. The HSU is also a division within the patrol resources bureau. The commander of the patrol resources bureau is Deputy Chief David Trombi. Chief David Trombi reports to Chief Brian Sands Starting in September of 2007, Lieutenant Joseph Sousa has been the unit
commander for the HSU. Prior to Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Siemens was in charge of the HSU. 48. 49. Lieutenant Sousa reports to Chief Trombi. In June of 2007, Sergeant Manuel Joseph Madrid became a Supervisor, along
with Ryan Baranyos, of the HSU. 50. Sergeant Madrid understands that assisting in crime suppressions or saturation
patrols is, for the most part, what HSU does. 51. 52. Sergeant Brett Palmer is also a Sergeant in the HSU. Sergeant Madrid supervises six deputies in the HSU, including Deputies Ramon
Charley Armendariz, Gabriel Doster, Rock Lopez, Alex Ortega and Ralphaelita Montoya. 53. Sergeant Palmer supervises deputies in the HSU as well, including Deputies
Carlos Rangel, Jesus Cosme, Victor Navarrette, David Joya, Chris Lopez and Brent Komoroski. 54. Sergeant Palmer and Sergeant Madrid also co-supervise each others personnel.
4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 his
agencyillegal immigration. He has described this focus as a crackdown on illegal immigration. 57. Sheriff Arpaio and other MCSO command-level staff have prioritized
enforcement 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 illegal
immigrants 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 crosscertify 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 as
trained 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, publicized
and operated (and continues to operate) a hotline for citizens to call with complaints
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 began
conducting operations known as saturation patrols or crime suppression operations. 63. The saturation patrols or crime suppression operations that the MCSO began
conducting around 2007 focus on illegal immigration. 64. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that MCSOs programs focusing on illegal immigration
are 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 for
law 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 its
operations 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 illegal
immigrants who have not committed any criminal offense. 68. In November of 2007, Sheriff Arpaio said that he was planning to send deputies
right 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 enforce
federal immigration law, such enforcement also fell within the HSUs ambit. 70. Starting in 2007, 160 MCSO deputies underwent the requisite training and
received 287(g) authority.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
71.
Lieutenant Sousa has estimated the average manpower involved in saturation
patrols as ranging between 80 to 100. 72. According to MCSO press releases, some saturation patrols have involved as
many as 200 participants. The MCSO has described its saturation patrols as deploying the 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 certified
by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board. 74. Some MCSO deputies have worn belaclavas or ski masks during saturation
patrols. 75. 76. 77. Sheriff Arpaio holds press conferences after some large saturation patrols. The MCSO puts out a News Release after most large saturation patrols. The MCSO publicizes, through press conferences, News Releases, or other media
outlets, 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 significant
resources. 79. MCSO personnel consider HSU a preferred assignment in part because members
of HSU are recognized by Sheriff Arpaio and other command staff. 80. When an agency does not take care to institute appropriate safeguards, the
creation 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 impress supervisors. This leads to a significant rise in intrusive, improper and misguided actions. 81. The prioritization of immigration enforcement creates a heightened risk of
unlawful conduct by deputies. 82. On October 16, 2009, ICE modified its 287(g) agreement with MCSO so that
deputies no longer had authority to enforce federal immigration laws outside of the jail
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 findings
regarding 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. 84. Saturation Patrols/Planning of Saturation Patrols
Chief Sands is responsible for planning saturation patrol operations, including
site-selection. 85. In making decisions regarding site-selection for saturation patrols, Chief Sands
consults 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 enforcement
activity by phone, U.S. mail and e-mail. 87. Sheriff Arpaio passes on to Chief Sands immigration related requests received via
telephone, U.S. mail or e-mail. 88. Sheriff Arpaio sends immigration related requests to Chief Sands because they
may 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. 91. Saturation patrols are regularly initiated based on citizen complaints. It is not generally accepted practice for the head of a law enforcement agency to
pass 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.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
93.
In its News Releases, the MCSO has described the goal of the saturation patrols
as arresting significant numbers of illegal immigrants. 94. After each saturation patrol, the MCSO provides the media with the total number
of illegal immigrants arrested. 95. In its News Releases, the MCSO has referred to the saturation patrols as crime
suppression/illegal immigration details. 96. In an email to Lieutenant Sousa dated April 09, 2008, Lieutenant McGlone wrote
I 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 Jesus
Cosme 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 negative
connotation and denied that the MCSO goes around sweeping people on the streets. 99. In Sheriff Arpaios calendar, days on which saturation patrols took place are
marked as sweeps. 100. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that he always has an official reason for doing things
to win the lawsuits, and then he has his reason. 101. In advance of large saturation patrols, HSU prepares and distributes a planning
document titled, Operations Plan, Overall Operations Summary, or Incident Action Plan. 102. 103. The planning document typically designates a command post for the operation. The planning document typically designates the date, time and briefing location
for the operation. 104. The planning document typically designates the units involved, uniforms,
equipment, and radio channels for the operation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
105.
The MCSO has conducted at least 13 large saturation patrols in which officers
from 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 the
end of each saturation patrol. 107. In large agencies, it is generally accepted practice that these plans and activities
around 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 a
briefing 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 a
complete 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
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 the 56 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, in
the 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 in
Guadalupe, 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 she
objected to the MCSOs saturation patrol in that small town, Sheriff Arpaio responded by 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 of
Fountain 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.
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
119.
The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on June 26-27, 2008, in
Mesa, 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, in
Sun 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, in
the 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, in
Avondale 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 being illegal immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law. 125. The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on September 5-6, 2009, in
the 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, in
Surprise and the Northwest Valley. 21 of the 32 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants. None were arrested under the state human smuggling law. 127. The MCSO conducted a county-wide large-scale saturation patrol on November
16-17, 2009. 33 of the 51 persons arrested were suspected of being illegal immigrants.
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
D.
Statements of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO Regarding Illegal Immigration
128.
Sheriff Arpaio stated that the 2009 modification to the MCSOs 287(g) agreement
would 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 stated
that, 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 Hispanics
crossing the border illegally. 131. Sheriff Arpaio has stated that the Hispanic illegal immigrants who come to
Arizona by and large have certain appearances, including brownskin color. 132. Discussing allegations that his agency was engaged in racial profiling during
immigration 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.
13
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
134.
Arpaio promoted the book, Joes Law, during book signings and interviews. All
of 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 on
our 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 Tent
City 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, We
are quickly becoming a full-fledged anti-illegal immigration agency. 139. Sheriff Arpaio also stated in the July 20, 2007 News Release, in connection with
the 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 Community Members
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. 142. Sheriff Arpaio decides, personally, what goes into his immigration file. Sheriff Arpaio received and saved, in his immigration file, letters and news
clippings explicitly advocating racial profiling.

14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
143.
Sheriff Arpaio has had his assistant, Helen Gonzalez, send thank you letters to
many of the individuals who wrote to him regarding immigration. 144. Sheriff Arpaio has also circulated certain of the letters he has received from
constituents regarding immigration to Chief Sands and others within the MCSO leadership. 145. It is not generally accepted practice for the head of a law enforcement agency to
circulate materials that advocate racial profiling or are racially charged within his office. 146. Circulation of such material sends a message to subordinates that the sentiments
expressed should be considered as communicating the Sheriffs desires for the agencys operations. 147. An anonymous letter dated March 12, 2009 in Sheriff Arpaios immigration file
states, 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 Brian
Sands, among others. 149. An email from Charles L., dated March 8, 2008, in Sheriff Arpaios immigration
file 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 requested
that 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 Arpaios
immigration 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.
15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 OFFICERS to look into. 153. A letter from Robert L., dated February 12, 2008, in Sheriff Arpaios immigration
file states, Joe, those terrorist bear a close resemblance to those Hispanics, they are dark skinned, 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 a
thank 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 the Arizona
Republic 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 has
talked to him personally in the past. 157. 158. Sheriff Arpaio forwarded Richard H.s October 27 email to Chief Sands. Richard H. has sent other correspondence advocating racial profiling. Sheriff
Arpaio has retained copies and circulated these materials. 159. In two of the many emails Richard H. sent to Sheriff Arpaio, and which Arpaio
kept, Richard H. specifically equates racial profiling with establishing probable cause. 160. Defendants police practices expert Bennie Click testified that he was not sure
whether 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
16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 to
investigate and deport illegal immigrants when they are spotted in our cities, and further 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 a
statement 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 illegal
Hispanic 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 a
thank 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 Arpaio
contains a chapter on racial profiling, purporting to capture the view of most U.S.
17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 Captain
Paul Chagolla. 168. In a letter to Sheriff Joe, Sarah M. and Erika S. write that Stopping Mexicans
to 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 any
of 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 forwarded
any 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 Sands
position 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 that
Hispanic 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 Alien
Contributions 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
18
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 the
document related to Chief Sands law enforcement activities. 177. Sheriff Arpaio did not check to see whether the information contained in the
Illegal 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 that
included a number of these same statistics. 179. On April 30, 2007, the Los Angeles Times published an article demonstrating that
the statistics circulated by Deputy Palmer were wholly inaccurate. 180. Sheriff Arpaio acknowledged that assertion that 83% of warrants for murder in
Phoenix are for illegal aliens does not sound right. F. 181. Correspondence Requesting Specific MCSO Action/Saturation Patrols
On or about June 24, 2008, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from Gina M., in
which she stated, They have the nerve to say we are racially profiling. Please, it is what it 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/Greenway
Pkwy 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. 185. The MCSO did saturation patrols in the area near 29th Street and Greenway. 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
19
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 Deputy
Trombi with a note for him to keep file on these complaints, and also to have someone contact 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 and
Lynnette 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 about
people 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 describe
any 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 a
handwritten notation for our operation. 191. On or about August 13 & 14, 2008, the MCSO conducted a saturation patrol in
Sun City. 192. On May 8, 2008, Mike Sa. wrote a letter to Sheriff Arpaio calling his attention to
the 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.
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
193.
Sheriff Arpaio sent Mike Sa.s letter to Chief Sands with a notation next to the
portion asking for police action against the day laborers as intelligence. 194. On May 24, 2008, Sheriff Arpaio received a letter from Jack Se., whom Arpaio
had corresponded with before, stating that Mesa needs a sweep . . . terribly. He noted that 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 illegals
because they were dark complected people. 196. In response to Jack Se.s letter, Arpaio wrote, I will be going into Mesa and
sent 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 your
concern 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 saturation
patrols 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 Arpaio
responded, 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 local
police 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.
21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
201.
The MCSO performed these sweeps in consideration of the fact that the MCSO
did 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., which
had 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 Deborah
B.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 based
onaccording 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 to
citizen 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 email
from 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 Requests
discussing 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.
22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
208.
The MCSO conducted saturation patrols near 36th Street and Thomas Road on
January 18-19, 2008 and March 21-22, 2008. 209. In a letter dated August 8, 2008, Bob and Lynette W. letter state that they would
love to see an immigrant sweep conducted in Surprise and that there are dozens of day laborers 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 City
West on August 13-14, 2008. 211. Sun City and Sun City West border Surprise and are often considered as part of
the same general area. 212. The MCSO also conducted a saturation patrol in the town of Surprise on October
16-17, 2009. 213. MCSO regularly received requests for sweeps or immigration enforcement
activity 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. 214. Focus of Saturation Patrols: Illegal Immigration
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 to
focus 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
23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 usually
focus on DUIs or gang activity. In such cases, officers would focus on a specific area where 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 been
given instructions to look for any patterns of criminal conduct or specific criminal suspects. 218. None of the MCSOs operations plans described any relationship between the
crime 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 traffic
hazards to justify a saturation patrol or selection of a site for a patrol. 220. Defendants expert, Bennie Click, acknowledged that none of the saturation
patrols 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 any
saturation patrols. 222. 223. 224. MCSOs objective on saturation patrols was not general crime suppression. MCSOs objective on saturation patrols was to interdict illegal immigrants. Defendants expert, Bennie Click, acknowledged that the general information to
officers . . . was that this is aan illegal immigration enforcement effort. 225. 226. Several saturation patrol operations were explicitly focused on day laborers. Deputy DiPietro, Deputy Rangel, Chief Sands and Lieutenant Sousa believe that
most day laborers in Maricopa County are Latino or Hispanic.

24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
227.
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sands both acknowledge that being a day laborer is not
a crime. 228. Chief Sands stated that he could not think of an instance in which the MCSO
arrested a day laborer who was not Hispanic. H. 229. Pretextual Stops During Saturation Patrols
The MCSOs primary tactic on immigration focused saturation patrols is to
conduct 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 activities
because 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 for
investigating alienage. 232. On operations conducted by the MCSO targeting day laborers, undercover units
identify vehicles that appear to be carrying illegal immigrants and then develop probable cause to stop those vehicles for a traffic violation. 233. Generally speaking, day labor activity is not an issue where conducting pretextual
traffic 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 minor
violations of the traffic code, including minor equipment violations. This departs from MCSOs traffic stop enforcement priorities during regular patrol.
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
235.
Examples of MCSO traffic stops for minor violations include cracked windshields
and broken taillights. 236. MCSO officers have greater discretion when making traffic stops for minor
violations of the traffic code. 237. MCSO officers can easily find probable cause to stop a vehicle for a traffic
violation. 238. Deputy Rangel testified that it is possible to develop probable cause to stop just
about any vehicle after following it for about two minutes. 239. Most law enforcement organizations the size of MCSO have ceased conducting
operations that are commonly viewed by the public as sweeps. When the police enforce the law in a manner historically seen as rousting, it has negative community effects since many completely innocent people will get caught up by police officers who are stopping and questioning people based on little or no articulable suspicion or probable cause, and those stopped will leave the encounter with animosity and anger toward the specific police officer(s) and the department, which in turn leads to widespread mistrust and suspicion. I. 240. MCSOs Purported Zero-Tolerance Policy
While some MCSO officers have claimed that there was a zero-tolerance policy
on saturation patrols, other officers acknowledged there was no such policy with respect to traffic stops. 241. Lieutenant Sousa and Chief Sands both testified that the zero tolerance policy
did not apply to traffic stops. 242. It would not be possible for MCSO officers to stop every single vehicle violating
the traffic code. MCSO officers must exercise discretion in deciding whom to stop. 243. MCSO officers make traffic stops for minor violations and equipment violations
on saturations patrols, in which the decision to stop is left to the discretion of the officer.
26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
244.
The MCSO did not conduct monitoring or data analysis to ensure that the zero
tolerance policy was being applied. 245. The collection and analysis of data on traffic stops is a generally accepted practice
of law enforcement organizations. 246. Zero tolerance does not eliminate officer discretion in traffic stops and would
not prevent racial profiling. 247. A zero tolerance policy combined with a lack of any follow-up to determine
whether 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 immigration
investigations on saturation patrols. 249. MCSO deputies routinely ask for identification from occupants of the vehicle
who 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 contact
passengers and ask them for documentation. 251. It is a generally accepted practice for a law enforcement agency to have a written
policy to define and to prohibit racial profiling. 252. MCSO witnesses have been unable to identify any agency-wide written policy
prohibiting racial profiling. 253. The MCSOs Code of Conduct does not include any prohibition on racial
profiling. 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.
27
1 2
J. 254.
MCSOs Use of Race/Hispanic Descent
Sergeant Palmer is of the view that race or ethnicity can be one of several factors
considered in deciding whether or not to initiate an investigation once a vehicle is

4
stopped. Sergeant Madrid also believes that race and ethnicity may be considered in an
5
immigration screening.
6
255.
7 8
MCSO deputies have described relying on apparent Hispanic descent to
investigate potential violations of the immigration law in incident reports of human smuggling stops.
9
256.
10 11
Operation plans for saturation patrols do not prohibit race and ethnicity from
being considered in the determination of whether to investigate someones immigration status after a traffic stop has been made.
12
257.
13 14
The presence in some of the operations plans of a simple statement that racial
profiling is prohibited is insufficient to remedy the problem. Some operations plans did not contain any statement regarding racial profiling. Some operations were carried out
15
with no operations plan at all.

16
258.
17 18
Additional bases for investigation into a persons citizenship and immigration
status by MCSO include the person speaks only Spanish, appear[ing] that the person just came from Mexico, and presence in an illegal alien locale.
19
259.
20 21
Sergeant Madrid recalled racial profiling training in the academy over ten years
ago, but was unable to remember what it covered. The only additional racial profiling training he received was as part of the 287(g) program.
22
260.
23 24
MCSO officers believe that the 287(g) training program they received permits
them to consider race or ethnicity as one factor in a totality of circumstances test when investigating potential violations of the immigration law.
25
K.
26
MCSOs Lack of Racial Profiling Training
261.
27 28
It is a generally accepted practice for a law enforcement agency involved in
immigration enforcement to implement ongoing racial profiling training to remind officers of their ethical responsibilities, how inherent biases can creep into their decision
28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 human
diversity topics, not only as a part of recruit training but also in the departments inservice training curriculum every two to three years. 263. Deputy Ratcliffe only received racial profiling training at the police academy in
2003 and through the 287(g) program. 264. The only racial profiling training Deputy Armendariz has received was the short
and 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 of
annual training by AZPOST, but had attended no other training during his career. 266. 267. AZPOST training does not regularly include a unit on racial profiling. Generally accepted practices require that appropriate training on racial profiling
include 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 or
sensitivity. 269. MCSOs failure to have a clear, agency-wide prohibition against racial profiling
that 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 prepare
them for the complexities of immigration enforcement through traffic stops away from the border, and does not comply with generally accepted police practices. 271. Increased training for troopers, supervisors and managers about racial profiling
and human diversity is a generally accepted practice of law enforcement organizations that are involved in immigration enforcement.
29
1 2
L. 272.
Distribution of Discriminatory Emails Within MCSO
An MCSO officer used his county email account to circulate a photo of a mock
drivers license for a state called Mexifornia, which included a photograph depicting
4
stereotypical Mexican features. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sands acknowledged that
5
this email could be offensive and was not in good taste.

6
273.
7 8
Sheriff Arpaio could not state whether circulation of the Mexifornia license email
violated a policy of his department. 274.

9 10
HSU officers and others distributed Mexican Word of the Day emails making
fun of Mexican accents on an ongoing basis. Chief Sands acknowledged that these emails are offensive.
11
275.
12 13
HSU officers and others circulated other emails containing jokes, derogatory
statistics and derogatory characterizations of Hispanics and Hispanic culture using their county email accounts.
14
276.
15 16
In one such example, HSU Sergeant Palmer sent an email with an attachment
entitled, 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
17
to be passed out from intoxication with the subtitle Mexican Yoga Requires about 3-4
18
hours to achieve.
19
277.
20 21
Jim van Allen, an MCSO posse member also sent emails containing
dehumanizing characterizations of illegal immigrants and praising a program from the 1950s known as Operation Wetback.
22
278.
23 24
Some supervisors, including supervisors in the HSU, were included in the
circulation of emails containing jokes, derogatory statistics and derogatory characterizations of Hispanics and Hispanic culture.
25
279.
26 27
MCSOs failure to immediately put an end to the circulation of such materials
created an impression that such stereotyping was appropriate and fell below generally accepted police practices.
28
30
1 2
M. 280.
MCSOs Lack of Oversight
Contrary to standard practice, MCSO sergeants do not play any role in the review
of deputies work, nor do they review or analyze activity sheets to determine what their
4
subordinates did during a tour of duty or while engaged in an operation within the HSU
5
or as a part of a larger operation employing large numbers of deputies.

6
281.
7 8
The MCSO does not have any system by which supervisors can analyze the race
and ethnicity of persons stopped or contacted by its officers. 282.

9 10
The generally accepted practice for any department concerned about racial
profiling is to require the collection of data to monitor for racial profiling. 283.
11 12
MCSO deputies are not required record all encounters or contacts made during
a shift, particularly with respect to those encounters that do not result in a citation or arrest.
13
284.
14 15
The generally accepted practice among most similarly situated law enforcement
organizations is that on traffic stops and field interrogations, absent being called away to an emergency, the officer or deputy should make a permanent record of the activity.
16
This is typically accomplished by completing a traffic citation, a warning citation or a

17
field interrogation card.

18
285.
19 20
To the extent that MCSO officers do record all contacts made during a shift, they
do so on pads of paper that they destroy at the ends of each shift. 286.
21 22
Following MCSO crime suppression operations, only citation and arrest data is
relayed to supervisors and no record of the total number of stops conducted is passed on nor are the ethnicity, gender and age of all people stopped with the dispositions of those
23
activities recorded anywhere.

24
287.
25 26
Such log entries or other methods to record MCSO stops, detentions, citations and
arrests are a prerequisite to identifying and correcting racially biased law enforcement decisions by officers.
27
288.
28
HSU supervisors testified they would not inquire further into the lawfulness of a
stop so long as there was probable cause for a traffic violation.

31
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
289.
Sergeant Palmer specifically testified that as long as there was a legal reason for
the 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, Quite
frankly . . . I know my brothers. 291. Sergeant Madrid is typically at the command post during saturation patrol
operations and is not present at traffic stops. 292. Despite having no means of verifying whether [his deputies are engaging in
racial profiling, Sergeant Madrid trust[s] that his deputies do not profile. 293. MCSO saturation patrol operations plans do not describe any specific role for
supervisors working in the operation. 294. Sergeant Madrid acknowledged that all but one of the names on a sample set of
saturation 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 March
2008 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 smaller
saturation 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 the
generally accepted practice for the officer in charge of the operation to prepare an afteraction report that evaluates the success of the event and points out shortcomings that
32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 a
not a concern because he trusts his officers. 300. Since MCSOs 287(g) agreement was terminated, Lieutenant Sousa has instructed
deputies 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 because
he had confidence in his officers. 302. Sheriff Arpaio testified that he himself would not be bothered if he was a victim
of racial profiling. 303. Chief Sands, Chief Deputy Hendershott and Lieutenant Sousa each testified that
they were not aware of MCSO ever having disciplined an officer for racial profiling. 304. Increased responsibility of supervisors to monitor stop data to evaluate job
performance 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 the
documentation 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 monitor
officers activities during saturation patrols falls below generally accepted police practices. 307. Defendants expert, Mr. Click, agreed that the MCSO supervisors approach to
supervision, as reflected in their testimony, did not meet generally accepted standards. 308. It is particularly important that supervisors review individual deputies records on
stops on a regular basis, in order to detect whether individual deputies have a pattern of
33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 patterns
that warrant additional investigation. Such review should examine the data at different levels (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 of
enforcement 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 of
enforcement 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. 313. The MCSO has never disciplined an officer for racial profiling. The MCSO does not have a formal system for individuals to make complaints
regarding instances of alleged racial profiling. 314. ICE had no basis on which to opine whether or not MCSO was engaged in racial
profiling. 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. 315. grants. 316. 317. The MCSO receives federal financial assistance. The MCSO uses federal funding in connection with police activity, including Federal Funding
The MCSO receives federal funding, including in the form of pass-through
conducting traffic stops and saturation patrols.
34
1 2
O. 318.
Actions of Arpaio and the MCSO Are Taken Under Color of Law
Actions taken by the MCSO with regarding to traffic stops and saturation patrols
are taken under the color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of a State,
4
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

5
319.
6 7
Actions taken by Sheriff Arpaio in his role as Sheriff of the MCSO are also taken
under the color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of a State, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.
8
320.
9 10
Sheriff Joseph Arpaio is the final decision maker for Maricopa County, under
Arizona 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
11
creating and regulating department policies regarding the stops and arrests and related
12
treatment of individuals in motor vehicles in Maricopa County.

13
321.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P. 322.
Expert Opinions Regarding Discriminatory Effects
Plaintiffs statistical expert, Dr. Ralph B. Taylor, conducted an analysis of
MCSOs 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 of
persons 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.
35
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
324.
To ensure the robustness of his results, Dr. Taylor used a range of percentile
thresholds for determining whether a surname is considered Hispanic, consistent with the accepted research in the field. 325. Dr. Taylor analyzed all stops in the CAD database from January 1, 2007 through
October 31, 2009 that are described as in the CAD data as traffic stops or traffic violations in which at least one name was called into dispatch. There were 106,802 such incidents in the CAD file, and 123,831 names checked. 326. To determine whether a large-scale saturation patrol occurred on a given day, Dr.
Taylor relied on the dates in Operations Plans created by MCSO in advance of major saturation patrol operations. These days are termed saturation patrol days. 327. To determine whether an MCSO officer had participated in a given saturation
patrol, Dr. Taylor relied upon the officers names listed on the Sign-in Rosters and Arrest Lists maintained by MCSO. 328. MCSO officers were 28.8% to 34.8% more likely to check Hispanics surnames on
saturation patrol days, as compared to non-saturation patrol control days one week before and after a saturation patrol day. 329. MCSO officers were 36.2% to 39.5% more likely to check Hispanic names as
compared to non-Hispanic names on saturation patrol days, as compared to nonsaturation patrol control days one year earlier. 330. MCSO officers were 26% to 29.9% more likely to check Hispanic names as
compared to non-Hispanic names on saturation patrol days, as compared to all nonsaturation patrol days. 331. The increased Hispanic surname checks on saturation patrols days versus non-
saturation patrol days shown in Dr. Taylors analysis was found regardless of the type of control dates used, and regardless of the probability threshold used for labeling a surname Hispanic. 332. The increased Hispanic surname checks on saturation patrols days versus non-
saturation patrol days shown in Dr. Taylors analysis were all highly statistically
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
significant, meaning that the chances of obtaining these results by chance were less than one in a thousand. 333. MCSO officers actively working in a saturation patrol operation were 34.1% to
40% more likely to check Hispanic surnames as compared to officers never involved in saturation patrol operations on non-saturation patrol days. 334. On saturation patrol days, MCSO officers actively working a saturation patrol
operation were 46% to 53.7% more likely to check Hispanic surnames compared to other officers also working on those same days but not involved in the major saturation patrol. 335. The increased rates of Hispanic surname checking by officers who were actively
working in saturation patrols appeared regardless of the probability threshold used for labeling a surname Hispanic. 336. The increased rates of Hispanic surname checking on by officers who were
actively working in saturation patrols were all highly statistically significant, meaning that the chances of obtaining these results by chance were less than one in a thousand. 337. MCSO officers took about 21% to 25% longer to complete a traffic stop when at
least one Hispanic name was checked. This result is highly statistically significant and controls for stop disposition (whether someone was arrested) and the number of names checked during a stop. 338. The 21% to 25% increase in traffic stop duration when a Hispanic surname was
checked corresponds to, on average, a predicted length difference of about two and a half to three minutes. 339. Dr. Taylor found that MCSO checked a total of 5,086 individuals names on the
days on which a large-scale saturation patrol operations were conducted. Between 1,312 and 1,988 of those individuals had surnames associated with Hispanic ethnicity. 340. MCSO conducted a total of 12 large-scale saturation patrols in the period between
January 1, 2007 and October 31, 2009. 341. Dr. Taylor found that MCSO officers who were known to have participated in
saturation patrols checked a total of 1,623 individuals names on the days on which
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
large-scale saturation patrol operations were conducted. Between 498 and 742 of these individuals had surnames associated with Hispanic ethnicity. 342. MCSO provided information concerning which officers participated in the
saturation patrol in 11 out of the 12 saturation patrols conducted between January 1, 2007 and October 31, 2009. 343. Dr. Taylors study uses internal benchmarking, in which the comparison group is
based upon MCSOs own traffic stop activity. 344. Defendants statistical expert, Dr. Steven Camarota is a researcher for the Center
for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates for greater restrictions on immigration. 345. Defendants statistical expert, Dr. Steven Camarota, acknowledged that one can
gain insight into what is happening by examining the CAD database, and that he also relies on data from the U.S. Census on surnames strongly associated with Hispanic ethnicity to infer the ethnicity of persons stopped and to detect patterns in those stops. 346. Defendants statistical expert, Dr. Steven Camarota, conceded that the CAD
database revealed a disparity in the stop rate for Hispanics between saturation patrol and non-saturation patrol days. 347. Dr. Camarota admitted that higher stop rates for Hispanics can indicate that
Hispanics are being targeted. 348. Dr. Camarota did not deny the existence of a disparity in MCSOs stop lengths,
i.e., that stops involving Hispanics last longer than other stops. 349. Dr. Camarota did not try to replicate Dr. Taylors analysis of the effect of
saturation patrols on Hispanic stop rates. 350. MCSOs Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) database records information from
calls by MCSO officers to central dispatch made during MCSO traffic stops. 351. The Incident History for each traffic stop in the CAD database contains
information about the traffic stop, including the date, time, duration, location, disposition, and primary officer conducting the traffic stop.
38
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
352.
The CAD database contains information on MCSO officers checks of names,
dates of birth, licenses, registrations and warrants that are called into dispatch during the traffic stop. 353. MCSO officers have indicated it is standard practice to call traffic stops they
initiate into dispatch. 354. Prior to stopping a vehicle, MCSO deputies typically call into dispatch and run
the license plate. Dispatch typically responds with information including the registered owner of the vehicle. 355. MCSO officers typically do not ask passengers for documentation unless they
have reasonable suspicion to believe that they have committed a violation of the law. 356. MCSO Sign-in Rosters contain a list of officers who participated on each day
of the saturation patrol. 357. MCSO saturation patrol Arrest Lists contain information about each of the
arrests made on a saturation patrol, including the arresting deputy. 358. Defendants statistical expert, Dr. Steven Camarota, acknowledged that one can
gain insight into what is happening by examining the CAD database, and that he also relies on data from the U.S. Census on surnames strongly associated with Hispanic ethnicity to infer the ethnicity of persons stopped and to detect patterns in those stops. 359. Defendants statistical expert, Dr. Steven Camarota, conceded that the CAD
database revealed a disparity in the stop rate for Hispanics between saturation patrol and non-saturation patrol days. 360. Dr. Camarota admitted that higher stop rates for Hispanics can indicate that
Hispanics are being targeted. 361. stops. 362. Dr. Camarota did not try to replicate Dr. Taylors analysis of the effect of Dr. Camarota did not deny that stops involving Hispanics last longer than other
saturation patrols on Hispanic stop rates.
39
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
363.
Dr. Camarota testified that a higher rate of Hispanics stopped during saturation
patrols would be expected if the operations are successful. Q. 364. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Ortega-Melendres
During the MCSOs saturation patrol in Cave Creek on September 27, 2007,
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres was riding as a passenger in a vehicle pulled over by Deputy Louis DiPietro. Mr. Ortega Melendres is Hispanic and a citizen of Mexico. 365. The purpose of the saturation patrol was to apprehend illegal immigrants that
were suspected to be looking for work at the Good Shepherd of the Hills Church. 366. Prior to the September 27, 2007 operation, the MCSO had sent undercover
officers to the Good Shepherd of the Hills Church. 367. During the undercover operation, the MCSO officers learned only that Hispanic
day laborers were obtaining work from employers visiting the day laborer center at the Good Shepherd of the Hills Church. 368. During the undercover operation at the Good Shepherd of the Hills Church, there
was no information discovered pertaining to forced labor, human smuggling or drop houses. 369. During the September 27, 2007 operation, MCSO undercover units identified
vehicles that appeared to have picked up day laborers at the church parking lot. The units would call out a vehicle description to marked MCSO units. The marked MCSO units would then follow the vehicles and develop probable cause of a traffic violation to stop them. 370. The pickup location was in a parking lot away from the road and operation did
not create any traffic issues. 371. Before Deputy DiPietro pulled over any of the vehicles carrying day laborers, he
had no reason to believe that the individuals riding as passengers in the vehicle had committed any violation of the law.
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
372.
After an undercover unit identified a vehicle picking up passengers at the church
appearing to be day laborers, including Mr. Ortega Melendres, it called out to Deputy DiPietro, who followed the vehicle for about one-and-a-half miles before pulling it over for speeding. 373. All that the undercover unit was able to observe is that passengers were picked up
at the church, and the appearance of the passengers, including that they were Hispanic. 374. Deputy DiPietro could observe the race of the passengers after he pulled the
vehicle over, if not before. 375. Deputy DiPietro did not cite the Caucasian driver for speeding or question him
further but gave him a verbal warning but did not question him further. 376. Deputy DiPietro took notes of the stop but destroyed them. He did not create any
other record of the stop. 377. Deputy DiPietro then called for additional officers to come check the status of
the passengers. 378. Deputy DiPietro did not have sufficient information prior to calling for an HSU
deputy to come check the status of the passengers in a vehicle in which he encountered Mr. Ortega-Melendres suggesting that Mr. Ortega-Melendres was not in country legally. 379. Deputy DiPietro did not conduct a human smuggling investigation of the driver of
the vehicle. 380. Deputy DiPietro made another stop on the same operation where he stopped a
vehicle for a broken taillight, gave the white driver a warning and turned over the Latino passengers to Sergeant Madrid for further investigation. 381. After finishing with the driver, the passengers, including Mr. Ortega Melendres,
were detained until Deputy Rangel could contact them and check their identification documents. 382. The CAD report associated with the stop involving Mr. Ortega Melendres
indicates that 21 minutes lapsed between the time Deputy Rangel arrived and when the passengers were transported from the scene.
41
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
383.
MCSO considers the lack of identification documents by a person (even a
passenger) to be grounds for investigating the persons immigration status. 384. Mr. Ortega-Melendres provided an I-94 Form and the tourist visa granting him
authorization to be in the United States to the MCSO officer who questioned him. 385. Mr. Ortega-Melendres was not working that day and did not tell any MCSO
officer that he was working or planning to work. 386. After conducting an investigation, Deputy Rangel placed Mr. Ortega Melendres
under arrest and transported him to ICE. 387. 388. After being transferred to ICE, Mr. Ortega Melendres was released by ICE. ICE released Mr. Ortega Melendres upon interviewing him. It found that his
detention was not justified due to the lack of evidence by MCSO such as pay stubs or a sworn statement admitting to working without a permit. Further, ICE found that Mr. Ortega Melendres had a valid I-94. 389. Mr. Ortega Melendres was in custody for a total of 7 to 8 hours before being
released by ICE. He spent approximately 2 hours in the custody of the MCSO. 390. Mr. Ortega-Melendres was targeted for investigation because he is Hispanic. R. 391. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez
On December 7, 2007, David and Jessika Rodriguez were driving on Bartlett
Dam Road towards the Bartlett Lake Marina with their children in the vehicle when they encountered two MCSO vehicles on the other side of a long wash (it had recently rained). Upon seeing this, they and another motorcycle behind them made a U-turn and started heading back up Bartlett Dam Road. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez and their children are Hispanic. They are United States citizens. 392. While the Rodriguezes were turning around, MCSO deputy Matthew Ratcliffe
stopped them for driving on a closed road. 393. Deputy Ratcliffe could observe the Rodriguezes race after he stopped them, if not
before.
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
394.
Deputy Ratcliffe asked Mr. Rodriguez for his license, registration, insurance, and
Social Security number. 395. The Rodriguezes recall that Deputy Ratcliff asked Mr. Rodriguez for his Social
Security card. 396. Mr. Rodriguez told Deputy Ratcliffe that they had been off-roading and did not
see the Road Closed sign. Mr. Rodriguez explained to Deputy Ratcliffe that they must have left the road before the Road Closed sign. 397. Other vehicles were on the same stretch of road with the Rodriguezes, including
one motorcyclist who made a U-turn at the same time that the Rodriguezes did. 398. MCSO officers are trained that a citation is not in the best interest of the public
when a person is not aware of the violation and educating the person by giving him a warning will have the same effect as a citation. 399. MCSO policy provides that the enforcement of traffic laws shall be consistent
and uniform. 400. The Rodriguezes pointed out to Deputy Ratcliffe that the other vehicles driven by
non-Hispanic persons stopped by Deputy Ratcliffes partner, including the motorcycle driver, were not receiving citations. At least one vehicle was allowed to drive through to the marina because the driver had to attend to a boat there. 401. Deputy Ratcliffe proceeded to issue Mr. Rodriguez a citation. Deputy Ratcliffe
testified that he does not badger drivers for a Social Security number, but even after the Rodriguezes asked why he needed it, he continued to insist that Mr. Rodriguez provide it. Mr. Rodriguez finally provided his Social Security number so that he could leave. 402. Deputy Ratcliffe then got on his loudspeaker and told the Rodriguezes to move
along. He followed the Rodriguezes closely in his patrol vehicle for two to three miles back out to the main road. 403. By the time Deputy Ratcliffe issued Mr. Rodriguez a traffic citation, he already
had Mr. Rodriguezs valid drivers license.
43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
404.
MCSOs policy only provides that additional forms of identification should be
requested if the violator does not have a drivers license. 405. It is not standard practice among law enforcement agencies to request a drivers
social security number, especially where the driver is otherwise able to produce current valid documents. 406. MCSO officers sometimes leave the Social Security number block on traffic
citations blank. 407. The traffic citation form also has a block called Military Status but Deputy
Ratcliffe did not insist on this information from Mr. Rodriguez. Other officers do, however, sometimes complete this information. 408. Deputy Ratcliffe testified that he stopped four other vehicles for driving on
Bartlett Dam Road that day. He did not cite the drivers of those vehicles, none of whom were Hispanic, and instead turned them over to a Tonto National Forest officer. 409. The approximate time of Deputy Ratcliffes traffic stop of the Rodriguezes was
20 minutes. 410. As Deputy Ratcliffe was speaking with the Rodriguezes, additional drivers pulled
up to the wash. During the time that Deputy Ratcliffe spoke with the Rodriguezes, Deputy Deputy Multz dealt with several other drivers who were on the same stretch of road, including the motorcyclist, Blaine Woodruff. 411. The drivers stopped by Deputy Multz were not Hispanic and they were not issued
citations. Blaine Woodruff was not issued a citation nor asked for his Social Security number. 412. The MCSO conducted an internal investigation into the Rodriguez stop. MCSO
supervisors reviewed what happened and took no issue with the way that Deputy Ratcliffe exercised his discretion. 413. The Rodriguezes were targeted for investigation because they are Hispanic. S. Traffic Stop Involving Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz
44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
414.
On March 28, 2008, MCSO was conducting a saturation patrol in North Phoenix
when Manuel Nieto and Velia Meraz encountered Deputy Charley Armendariz at a gas station near their familys auto shop where they work. Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz are Hispanic. They are citizens of the United States. 415. Deputy Armendariz was in the course of conducting a traffic stop and had two
Hispanic individuals detained at the gas station. 416. Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were on a break from work and went to the gas station
to purchase some cigarettes. 417. As Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz drove into the gas station and pulled into a parking
spot, they were playing Spanish music with their windows rolled down. At this time, Deputy Armendariz ordered Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz to leave or he would arrest them for disorderly conduct. According to Deputy Armendariz, Ms. Meraz was speaking in Spanish to the detainees, telling them to remain silent and ask for a lawyer. 418. time. 419. 420. Deputy Armendariz also called for another unit to come to the scene. Deputy Armendariz did not say anything on the call to dispatch beyond Deputy Armendariz could observe the race of Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz at that
requesting backup. 421. While they were at the station, neither Mr. Nieto nor Ms. Meraz ever exited the
vehicle. Because of Deputy Armendarizs order that they leave, they instead left the gas station without purchasing any cigarettes. 422. By the time additional officers arrived, Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz had left the gas
station and were out of Deputy Armendarizs view. 423. When Deputy Kikes arrived, Deputy Armendariz says he gave Deputy Kikes a
description of the vehicle and its occupants. Deputy Kikes remembers only seeing Deputy Armendariz waving in the direction of the vehicle driven by Mr. Nieto. 424. As Deputy Beeks arrived, he could see that Deputy Armendariz was unharmed.
Deputy Armendariz signaled to Deputy Beeks where the vehicle had gone.
45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
425.
Deputy Armendariz later relayed to Deputy Beeks that Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz
had committed no crime and that there was no probable cause to arrest. 426. Deputy Kikes signaled to Mr. Nieto to pull over. At the time he pulled Mr. Nieto
over, he had no information about Mr. Nieto other than that Deputy Armendariz had requested backup. 427. Mr. Nieto was in the left turn lane on Cave Creek Road when Deputy Kikes
activated his emergency lights. 428. Mr. Nieto pulled in to the family auto shop because it was just south of their
location. 429. The entire distance from the gas station where Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz
encountered Deputy Armendariz to the auto shop was approximately 350 feet. 430. While they were being pulled over by Deputy Kikes, Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz
called 911 because they believed they were being harassed. 431. When the vehicle came to a stop in front of the auto shop, MCSO vehicles
surrounded it. 432. As Deputy Beeks and other officers approached the stopped vehicle, they had
their guns drawn. 433. As they approached, if not before, Deputy Beeks, Kikes and the other officers
could observe the race of Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz. 434. When Mr. Nieto did not initially exit the vehicle because he was on the phone
with 911, Deputy Kikes opened the drivers side door and pulled Mr. Nieto out. Mr. Nieto recalls being lifted off the ground by officers and thrown against the vehicle. 435. As this was occurring, Mr. Nieto and Ms. Merazs family members came out of
the auto shop and informed the deputies that they were U.S. citizens. 436. Deputy Kikes brought Mr. Nieto to the rear of the vehicle, handcuffed, and ran
his identification. He found no problems. 437. Deputy Kikes did not have sufficient justification for MCSO to forcibly remove
Mr. Nieto from the car and handcuffing him.

46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
438.
Officers then released Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz without any citation or charge.
They did not provide Mr. Nieto or Ms. Meraz with an explanation of what happened or an apology. 439. There were no factors supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop
Ms. Meraz and Mr. Nieto. 440. Deputy Armendariz testified that he gave Deputy Kikes a description of the
vehicle and its occupants, but he did not give a reason to stop Ms. Meraz and Mr. Nieto. 441. Mr. Nieto called the MCSO to lodge a complaint with the MCSO but never
received a call back from anyone to take the complaint. 442. Ms. Meraz and Mr. Nieto were targeted for investigation based on the color of
their skin. T. 443. Traffic Stop Involving Jerry Alfonso Cosio
Jerry Alfonso Cosio is an 18 year old Hispanic male. Mr. Cosio is a U.S. citizen
and resides in Mesa, Arizona. 444. Sometime after 2 p.m. on July 23, 2009, Mr. Cosio had just left school when his
mother called to inform him that his uncle had been pulled over off Mesa Drive near I-60 in Mesa. Mr. Cosio headed towards the location of the stop so that he could see what would happen to his uncle. 445. Mr. Cosio pulled into a side street off Mesa Drive just north of I -60 called as he
pulled in, Mr. Cosio saw a black MCSO SUV behind his uncle's car. Mr. Cosio pulled over to the right side of the street approximately 15 feet in front of his uncle's car and informed his mother over the telephone of his location. As Mr. Cosio was speaking to his mother, a Sheriffs deputy approached the driver's side window of Mr. Cosios car and told him to hang up the phone so that Mr. Cosio could answer his questions. Mr. Cosio later learned that the deputy's name was Frank Sloup. 446. Deputy Sloup asked who Mr. Cosio was. Mr. Cosio told him that he was his
uncle's nephew. Deputy Sloup then demanded to see his driver's license, but did not ask
47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
him to produce any insurance or registration documents for the car. Mr. Cosio told Deputy Sloup that he had left his wallet at home and, on his request, provided his full name and Social Security number. Deputy Sloup then made Mr. Cosio give him the keys to his car while he went to check the information on his computer. 447. After a few minutes, Mr. Cosio got out of the vehicle to see what was going on.
Mr. Cosio saw his uncle in handcuffs, about to be arrested. Deputy Sloup then walked back towards his car and said, "You want to know what's funny? I'm arresting you too." 448. Deputy Sloup placed Mr. Cosio in handcuffs, and even though Mr. Cosio told him
they were too tight and hurting him, Deputy Sloup refused to adjust them. Deputy Sloup did not inform Mr. Cosio of his Miranda rights. When the tow truck arrived to take Mr. Cosios uncle's truck, the tow truck operator asked Deputy Sloup if he should tow Mr. Cosios car too. Deputy Sloup answered, "Fuck yeah, tow that piece of shit." This made Mr. Cosio feel ashamed and upset. 449. A white van came to pick up Mr. Cosio and his uncle. A female MCSO officer
got out of the van and asked them where we were from. Mr. Cosio told her that he was from here, that he was a citizen. They were then taken to a Sheriffs substation on Javelina Avenue in Mesa. Mr. Cosio saw news cameras and many police officers around. 450. When they got inside the substation, Sheriffs deputies told Mr. Cosio to take
everything out of his pockets. As he was doing so, he overheard one deputy congratulate the deputy who arrested Mr. Cosio and his uncle, saying he got two birds with one stone. Another deputy asked why he drove over to the location where his uncle was. 451. Mr. Cosio then heard someone say, in reference to Mr. Cosio, that he doesnt
count because hes American. 452. Mr. Cosio and his uncle were held at the substation for approximately six hours
and then escorted in front of the news cameras to a van and taken to the County Jail. Mr. Cosio finally saw a judge at approximately 5 a.m. on July 24, 2009, and was released on his own recognizance.
48
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
453.
Deputy Sloup had written a traffic ticket with five charges. He cited Mr. Cosio for
driving without a license, driving on a suspended license, failing to show identification, failing to show proof of insurance, and not wearing his seat belt. 454. Mr. Cosios driver's license had been suspended because he had failed to pay a
speeding ticket. 455. Mr. Cosio was not asked for proof of insurance, and if Deputy Sloup had asked,
he would have been able to show it to him. 456. Mr. Cosio was wearing his seat belt when he pulled in to Holmes Avenue. He
only took it off after he had put the car in park and was speaking to his mother. 457. The arrest and towing of Mr. Cosios car caused his family a lot of stress. His
dad eventually got the car back from the impound yard, but he had to pay $400. 458. Deputy Sloup had no reason to treat Mr. Cosio as a suspect when he approached
his vehicle. 459. 460. Mr. Cosio was targeted for investigation because he is Hispanic. Mr. Cosio is afraid that he could be stopped again by MCSO for no reason. U. 461. 462. States. 463. On February 11, 2009, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Julio was riding with his Traffic Stop Involving Julio and Julian Mora
Julio Mora is a United States citizen and a resident of Avondale, Arizona. His father, Julian Mora, is a long-time legal permanent resident of the United
father as his father drove to work. 464. Julian worked for Handyman Maintenance, Inc. ("H.M.I.") at 19th Avenue and
Lower Buckeye Road in Phoenix. 465. As they were traveling eastbound on Hilton Avenue, Julio noticed two MCSO
vehicles. Julian then turned right onto 19th Avenue.
49
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
466.
Soon after they turned, they were stopped by an MCSO vehicle that cut them off
on 19th Avenue. Julian slammed the breaks, stopping in front of W.W. Williams, a business adjacent to H.M.I. Another MCSO vehicle stopped behind them. 467. A deputy got out of the vehicle in front of them, and walked up to the driver side
window. He asked where the Moras were going, and they told him that Julian was going to work at H.M.I. 468. The deputy then instructed them to turn off the engine and step out of the vehicle.
A second deputy approached. One of the deputies patted down the Moras, zip tied their hands together, and walked them over to H.M.I., while the other moved their vehicle into the parking lot at W.W. Williams. Julio Moras hands were tied painfully tight. 469. At H.M.I., Julio Mora saw many people lined up and other deputies guarding
them. Some of the deputies were dressed in black uniforms with ski masks over their faces, and were carrying large guns. 470. The Moras were detained in line for approximately three hours, and were released
only after deputies were able to confirm that they were lawfully present in the United States. 471. The MCSO stopped the Moras even though Julian Mora was not violating
any traffic laws. 472. The deputies did not issue any warning or citation to Julian Mora. They were
pulled over because they are Hispanic. 473. After their stop by MCSO, the Moras filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and
certain MCSO officers. In April 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona found that the MCSO did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the Moras. The case eventually settled out of court. V. 474. Traffic Stop Involving Lorena Escamilla
Lorena Escamilla is a Hispanic female. Ms. Escamilla is a U.S. citizen and
a resident of Laveen, Arizona.
50
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
475.
At approximately 10 p.m. on September 2, 2009, Ms. Escamilla was driving
south on South 55 Ave. approaching W. Ellis Dr. and noticed a Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") vehicle traveling north on the same street, do a U-turn, followed her and then flashed the emergency lights as she approached her home. 476. 477. Ms. Escamilla was headed home after her evening class. Ms. Escamilla pulled into her driveway and waited for the officer to approach
her. She later learned that this officer's name was Frank Gamboa. 478. Officer Gamboa requested Ms. Escamillas driver's license, car registration and
proof of insurance. She handed him her driver's license and car registration and asked him why she had been stopped. 479. Officer Gamboa took Ms. Escamillas license and registration and walked away
without explaining the reason he had stopped her. When he returned her documents, she again asked him why he pulled her over. 480. Officer Gamboa explained that the license plate light in the back of Ms.
Escamillas car was broken. 481. Officer Gamboa then told Ms. Escamilla that he was going to search her car
because he had reason to believe that she had drugs and weapons in her car. She did not provide her authorization for him to search her car. 482. Ms. Escamilla explained to Officer Gamboa that she was five months pregnant
and that she had the right to refuse an unreasonable search of her property. 483. Officer Gamboa asked Ms. Escamilla if he could search her car. Again, she
refused. He became more hostile. He then threatened to call the Phoenix Police Department's K-9 unit if Ms. Escamilla did not authorize him to search her car. She did not give him her authorization to search the vehicle. 484. Ms. Escamilla then started dialing 911 on her cell phone to report Officer
Gamboa's behavior. Officer Gamboa reached into her car and grabbed the cell phone out of her hand. 485. Officer Gamboa's action scared Ms. Escamilla and she feared for her safety.
51
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
486.
Ms. Escamilla honked her car horn to get her husband's or neighbor's attention.
Her husband came outside and she got out of the car. 487. Ms. Escamilla then noticed that another person who looked like a sheriffs
officer had arrived. She assumed this officer was back up for Officer Gamboa. 488. Ms. Escamillas husband, Officer Gamboa, the other officer and Ms.
Escamilla then discussed for several minutes whether Ms. Escamilla was going to get a citation and what she would be cited for. 489. Officer Gamboa insisted several times that Ms. Escamilla take a seat on the hood
of her car. 490. Ms. Escamilla did not want to sit down because she was very tired from her
pregnancy and had been sitting all day. 491. After Ms. Escamilla explained this to Officer Gamboa he became furious and
responded by saying, "I can be an asshole if you're going to be a bitch!" He then grabbed her arms and pulled them behind her back and jerked her back and forth slamming her in to the car where the side view mirror is. Ms. Escamillas body hit the vehicle stomach-first about three times. 492. Officer Gamboa then dragged Ms. Escamilla backwards to his patrol car and
shoved her into the back seat. Ms. Escamilla felt her baby move excessively for a few seconds and then stop. Ms. Escamilla was afraid that she would have a miscarriage. 493. Officer Gamboa sat in the driver's seat of the patrol car and threatened to call
the K-9 unit and book Ms. Escamilla into county jail if she did not authorize him to search the car. 494. Ms. Escamilla then asked Officer Gamboa to book her so that she could see his
charges. He then turned off the air conditioning, raised the windows, locked the doors and exited the car. Ms. Escamilla sat in the car with the windows and doors closed. 495. A few minutes later Ms. Escamilla was approached by someone she later He asked Ms. Escamilla if she would like
52
learned was posse member Cherches.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
him to call the fire department to provide her with medical assistance. Ms. Escamilla told him she would like that. 496. Mr. Cherches opened the window slightly so that Ms. Escamilla could have some
fresh air. 497. 498. 499. Ms. Escamilla stayed in the back of the patrol car for over 30 minutes. While there Ms. Escamilla observed two other sheriffs officers arrive. They approached Officer Gamboa and spoke to him. Ms. Escamillas mother
later told her that she overheard them tell Officer Gamboa to let her go with a warning instead of citing her. 500. Ms. Escamilla also observed the K-9 unit open the doors of her car and let the
dogs sniff around her car. 501. The deputies let the dogs into her car to search the cars front and back seats.
They did not find any evidence of drugs or weapons as there were none. 502. When the Phoenix Fire Department arrived they checked Ms. Escamillas vital
signs and determined that she had an accelerated heart rate and that her breathing was shallow. They urged her to calm down and to focus on stabilizing her breathing and heart rate because this could affect her baby's well-being. 503. After the fire department and K-9 units left the scene, Officer Gamboa
handed Ms. Escamilla a citation for failing to provide identification and proof of insurance. 504. As he handed it to Ms. Escamilla, she overheard one of the officers ask Officer
Gamboa where the citation for the moving violation was. She disagreed with these charges and did not want to sign the citation. Officer Gamboa told Ms. Escamilla that if she did not sign the citation he would book her in county jail. 505. Because Ms. Escamilla was too tired to challenge the citation, she signed it. By
the time Ms. Escamilla was able to enter her house it was approximately midnight.
53
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
506.
The following day Ms. Escamilla had bruises on her arms where Officer Gamboa
had grabbed her. Ms. Escamilla did not feel the fetus move for two days following the incident with Officer Gamboa. 507. On September 4, 2009, Ms. Escamilla called the MCSO to lodge a
complaint against Officer Gamboa's citation and use of excessive force. 508. 509. Ms. Escamilla was told that no one was available to speak with her. Ms. Escamilla attempted to lodge a complaint against Officer Gamboa about
once a day for several days following the incident but was unable to do so. Each time Ms. Escamilla called she was told that she had to speak with Sergeant William or Officer Gamboa's supervisor and that they were not available. Ms. Escamillas last attempt to lodge a complaint was on September 10, 2009. 510. The citation Ms. Escamilla received from Officer Gamboa was for failure to
show identification and for failing to provide proof of insurance. When Ms. Escamilla called the court to get more information about how to resolve the citation Ms. Escamilla was informed by the clerk that her citation was for lack of proof of insurance only. 511. According to the court clerk, Officer Gamboa appeared to have crossed out
the charge of not providing identification and written his initials next to it. 512. At the time Officer Gamboa stopped Ms. Escamilla she did have car insurance.
However, she did not have proof of it in in her car. Ms. Escamilla faxed the proof of insurance to the court and the citation was resolved. The broken license light was not mentioned at all on the citation. W. 513. years. 514. Mr. Magos currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife, Eva Magos, who is Traffic Stop Involving Daniel Magos
Daniel Magos is a Hispanic male. Mr. Magos has been a U.S. citizen for over 40
also a U.S. citizen.
54
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
515. 516.
Ms. Magos is 70 years old and Hispanic. At approximately 10:00 a.m. on December 4, 2009, Mr. Magos was driving north
on 27th Avenue with his wife in the car. They had just stopped at the comer of 27th Avenue and Durango Street when Mr. Magos noticed a MCSO patrol car driving eastbound on Durango Street. 517. The deputy inside the MCSO vehicle looked into the cab of Mr. Magoss truck
and made eye contact with Mr. Magos as he turned south on 27th Avenue. 518. His stare was so apparent and disturbing that Mr. Magos asked himself, "Why is
he staring at us like that?" He then made a sudden U-turn and started to follow Mr. Magos as he turned left onto Durango Street, headed west. 519. When they were on Durango Street, the deputy activated his emergency lights and
Mr. Magos pulled over to the right. 520. After the Magos pulled over, the deputy did not immediately approach, and Mr.
Magos and his wife started to exit the truck to find out what was going on. The deputy suddenly yelled at them to get back in. 521. Mr. Magos later learned that this Deputy's name was Russell and his badge
number is S1886. 522. Deputy Russell approached the driver's side window of the truck with his hand on
his gun and asked Mr. Magos and his wife for identification, saying "I want both of your IDs.'' He then specified that he wanted "driver's licenses." Mr. Magos and his wife both provided him with their Arizona driver's licenses. 523. Deputy Russell also asked Mr. Magos to provide him with registration and
insurance information for the vehicle. Mr. Magos provided him with the insurance information, but had trouble locating the registration. Deputy Russel then told Mr. Magos to forget the registration, saying it "wasn't important." 524. Only after Mr. Magos and his wife provided him with ID did Deputy Russell
explain why he had pulled them over. He told Mr. Magos that he stopped him because the license plate on the back of the truck was not visible.
55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
525.
Deputy Russell would not have been able to see the back of Mr. Magos truck
when he made the U-tum on 27th Avenue. 526. Deputy Russell then asked Mr. Magos if he had any drugs, weapons, or bazookas
in the truck. Mr. Magos did not know why he asked him about bazookas. 527. Mr. Magos told him that there were no drugs or weapons in the car, except that he
had a handgun, as allowed by Arizona law. Deputy Russell took the handgun, and then asked Mr. Magos to step out of the vehicle so that he could search Mr. Magos. 528. Mr. Magos did not agree to being searched. Deputy Russell insisted that he was
going to search Mr. Magos. Finally, he ordered Mr. Magos to stand against the car with his legs spread apart, frisked him, and looked inside his pockets. 529. The deputy then took Mr. Magos and his wifes information back to his patrol car.
While he was still at his patrol car, Mr. Magos phone rang. Since it was his business client calling, and he was already late to meet him, Mr. Magos answered the phone. Deputy Russell returned from his patrol car and yelled at him to hang up the phone. He then said they were free to go. 530. Mr. Magos felt that they had been treated rudely and unfairly. Mr. Magos asked
Deputy Russell for his name and badge number. He was not wearing a badge. When Deputy Russel saw that Mr. Magos had a pen and pad to write this information down, he said, "Don't go thinking this is racial profiling." 531. After this, the deputy let Mr. Magos go without a citation. After the incident, Mr.
Magos daughter's boyfriend called the Sheriff's Office twice to try to speak to a supervisor about Deputy Russell. He told MCSO personnel that he was calling with a complaint about an officer on a traffic stop and left his name and telephone number. He never received a call back. 532. Mr. Magos has lived in Arizona for a long time. Mr. Magos has also been stopped
by other police departments. Never has he encountered the type of treatment his wife and him received when we were stopped on December 4th by the MCSO. 533. The Magos were stopped and harassed because they are Hispanic.
56
1 2
X. 534.
Traffic Stop Involving Adolfo Maldonado
Adolfo Maldonado is a Hispanic male and a resident of Tempe, Maricopa County,
Arizona.
4
535.
5
Mr. Maldonado has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since
1989.
6
536.
7 8
Mr. Maldonado is a member of Somos America and has been attending the
organization's meetings since 2008. 537.

9 10
On March 22nd, 2008, Mr. Maldonado was driving his car in Phoenix during a
MCSO sweep. 538.

11 12
Mr. Maldonados brother, who is also Hispanic, was riding in his car as a
passenger. He was volunteering as an observer with some members of Cop Watch to document potential incidents of police misconduct and racial profiling.
13
539.
14 15
During the sweep, an MCSO vehicle that Mr. Maldonado had been following (at
a safe distance) pulled off the road and stopped. Mr. Maldonado continued to drive past it. As Mr. Maldonado passed it, the MCSO vehicle followed him and pulled him over.
16
540.
17
The deputy, a Caucasian male, approached Mr. Maldonados vehicle. The deputy asked why Mr. Maldonado was following him and told him to stop.
541.
18 19
Mr. Maldonado responded by asking the officer if he was breaking any laws, to which he replied "no".
20
542.
21
The deputy kept Mr. Maldonado and his brother detained for about 10 minutes. Finally, the deputy returned to Mr. Maldonados window and released them. The
543.
22 23
deputy did not issue Mr. Maldonado any citation. 544.

24
Mr. Maldonado did not follow that particular deputy for the rest of the evening. On July 14, 2008, at around 8:30 pm, Mr. Maldonado was volunteering as an
545.
25 26
observer during an MCSO sweep in Mesa, Arizona. 546.

27 28
Mr. Maldonado was driving and two other persons, a Caucasian and a Native
American, were riding as passengers. Mr. Maldonado was pulled over again by MCSO near Southern Avenue, west of Country Club.
57
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
547.
The deputy, whom Mr. Maldonado learned from the citation was Deputy B.
Ruehle, approached the driver side window and asked Mr. Maldonado if he was in the country legally. 548. When Mr. Maldonado asked the deputy if he was required to answer him, the
deputy said no and Mr. Maldonado did not answer. Mr. Maldonado handed the deputy his drivers' license. 549. The deputy then asked for Mr. Maldonados Social Security number. Mr.
Maldonado asked the deputy if he was required to provide it, and again, he said no. Mr. Maldonado did not provide his Social Security number. 550. At a later point, the deputy returned to Mr. Maldonados car to ask Mr.
Maldonado if he was related to someone else with the same last name, "Maldonado". Mr. Maldonado told the deputy that he was not. 551. The deputy then issued Mr. Maldonado a citation for expired registration and no
proof of insurance. Mr. Maldonado was later able to get both of these charges dismissed after showing his updated registration and proof of insurance. 552. Mr. Maldonado was pulled over and treated the way he was because he is
Hispanic. Y. 553. 554. Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Villaman
Sergio Villaman is a Hispanic male. As of December, 2009, Mr. Villaman had a valid H2B visa to work in the United
States and was working as a planter at Moon Valley Nursery in Chandler, Arizona. 555. At approximately 3 p.m. on June 27, 2008, Mr. Villaman was just leaving the
Circle K near the intersection of Stapley Road and Broadway Road in Mesa. Mr. Villaman was with his friend Roberto, and they were on their way to Moon Valley Nursery to meet a supervisor. 556. As Mr. Villaman was waiting for traffic to clear on Stapley Road so that he could
leave the parking lot, Mr. Villaman saw a MCSO patrol car pass by. As Mr. Villaman
58
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
turned onto Stapley Road, headed southbound, the MCSO patrol car made a U-turn and began to follow him. 557. over. 558. 559. Mr. Villaman stopped his vehicle on a residential street. A Sheriffs deputy approached the driver's side window and asked to see Mr. Very shortly thereafter, the MCSO patrol car signaled for Mr. Villaman to pull
Villamans driver's license, insurance and registration. Mr. Villaman later learned that this deputy's name was Jeremy Templeton. 560. Mr. Villaman provided Deputy Templeton his insurance and registration
information, which he kept in a plastic pouch in the glove box, and the title to the car which was in a separate envelope. Though Mr. Villaman did not provide a driver license, he provided Deputy Templeton with several other forms of identification, including his Arizona identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, a valid work visa, his Social Security Card, and his Mexican passport. 561. Except for his Social Security Card, all of the documents Mr. Villaman provided
to Deputy Templeton had his photograph. Yet Deputy Templeton still asked Mr. Villaman to whom the documents belonged. Mr. Villaman told him they were his own. 562. Mr. Villaman asked Deputy Templeton why he had been stopped, but he did not
tell him. Deputy Templeton directed Mr. Villaman and his friend Roberto to sit on the street curb about ten or fifteen minutes in the heat. 563. As Roberto and Mr. Villaman were sitting on the street curb, Deputy Templeton
also asked Roberto as to whether he had any identification and whether he spoke English. Mr. Villaman heard him tell Roberto that he worked for "ICE." When Roberto did not cooperate, Deputy Templeton seemed annoyed and said he did not care; he allowed Roberto to leave on foot. 564. After this, Deputy Templeton turned back to Mr. Villaman and, reviewed his
documents and told him he was under arrest because he did not have any identification.
59
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
565.
When Mr. Villaman and asked him about all of the identification documents that
he had given him, Deputy Templeton did not respond. 566. Deputy Templeton handcuffed Mr. Villaman and placed him in the back of the
patrol car. Mr. Villaman was not allowed to use his cell phone to call his supervisor and inform him that he would not be coming. 567. Mr. Villaman was not given a copy of a citation. Mr. Villaman learned from
another officer that the reason he was stopped was because he had not used his signal light. 568. However, Mr. Villaman had used his signal light when he was turning onto
Stapley Road, before he merged into the center lane on Stapley Road, and when he pulled over for Deputy Templeton. Mr. Villaman had not otherwise changed lanes or engaged in any other driving that would have required that he use his signal. 569. 570. Approximately two hours later, Mr. Villaman was transferred to a MCSO van. Mr. Villaman remained inside for several hours as the van made unusual stops
behind grocery stores and other out-of-the-way places to pick up additional detainees. 571. 572. The deputies were trying to avoid the news reporters and cameras. By the time they reached the jail, there were about a dozen Latino-appearing
people with Mr. Villaman in the van. They were chain-linked together at the hands and ankles. It was approximately 11 p.m. at night. Mr. Villaman had not had any food since he was stopped. 573. After midnight on June 28, 2008, the detainees were taken before a judge. Mr.
Villaman could not communicate with the judge because there was no interpreter available. The judge set bond and scheduled a court hearing on July 8, 2008 in the East Mesa Justice Court. Because Mr. Villaman did not understand that he had to pay a bond, his bond was not paid, and he was transferred to the Durango Jail. 574. Over the next week, Mr. Villaman became increasingly concerned about what
was going to happen to him. Mr. Villaman had never before spent time in jail, and he still did not understand why he had been arrested.
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
575.
On July 8, 2008, Mr. Villamans case was finally reviewed by the Justice of the
Peace at the East Mesa Justice Court. Because no criminal complaint had ever been filed against Mr. Villaman, he ordered Mr. Villaman released. 576. By the time Mr. Villaman received his personal belongings and was allowed to
leave the jail, it was approximately 11:00 a.m. on July 9, 2008. 577. Mr. Villaman was extremely worried about losing his job because he had not been
in contact with his employer. Fortunately, Mr. Villaman was allowed to return to work but to a different position, at lower pay. 578. While Mr. Villaman was detained he was unable to pay rent and bills. Mr.
Villaman also missed the funeral of a close cousin. 579. Mr. Villamans vehicle was taken to an impound yard, and he did not receive
notice of where it was taken or how to get it back. 580. Approximately two months later, Mr. Villaman received a notice that his vehicle
was considered abandoned. 581. Mr. Villaman became afraid to go out in the community for fear of being stopped
or arrested again. 582. Mr. Villaman was stopped not because he had done anything wrong, but because
he is Hispanic. Z. 583. 584. 585. Traffic Stop of Lino Garcia
Lino Garcia is a Hispanic male. Mr. Garcia is a U.S. citizen and currently lives in Avondale, Arizona. Between June and August of 2009, Mr. Garcia was pulled over four times by the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO"). 586. Three of the four times, Mr. Garcia was pulled over near his home in Avondale.
The fourth time, Mr. Garcia was pulled over on the way to a CVS store. 587. Each time Mr. Garcia was pulled over, Mr. Garcia was with his girlfriend, who is
also Hispanic.
61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
588.
In addition to requesting identification from Mr. Garcia, the Sheriffs deputies also
demanded that his girlfriend produce her identification. 589. On the first traffic stop, the Sheriffs deputy told them that this was ''standard
procedure" to run a check on her too. 590. On one of the stops, Mr. Garcia was told that he was pulled over because the
Sheriffs deputy could not see his license plate because it was too dark. 591. On another stop, after Mr. Garcia had replaced his license plate light, he was told
that he was stopped because his license plate light was too bright. 592. 593. On a third stop, Mr. Garcia was told that his license plate was blocked by a hitch. Mr. Garcias license plate was clearly visible at all times. Mr. Garcia was not
issued any warning or citation after any of the stops. 594. On the first stop, the Sheriffs deputy also accused Mr. Garcias girlfriend and
Mr. Garcia of smoking marijuana, even though they had not smoked any marijuana, and searched his car and his girlfriend's backpack. 595. On another stop, Mr. Garcia was asked for his Social Security number. Mr.
Garcia thought this was a strange request, but provided it to the deputy because he did not feel he had a choice. 596. The fourth time Mr. Garcia and his girlfriend were stopped, they were on their
way to the store. The Sheriffs deputy told Mr. Garcia he had stopped them because they looked "suspicious." He accused Mr. Garcia of drinking and asked him to submit to a breathalyzer test. 597. Mr. Garcia was forced to exit his vehicle and sit on the curb while the deputy
checked his girlfriend and his IDs. The deputy eventually let them go without making them take a test or issuing them any citation. 598. Mr. Garcia and his girlfriend were so upset for having been stopped for no reason
that they did not go to the store and returned home instead. 599. As a result or the incidents above, Mr. Garcia and his girlfriend do not feel
comfortable driving in their own neighborhood.

62
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
600.
Mr. Garcia and his girlfriend were stopped each time because they are Hispanic,
and not because of anything they had done wrong. AA. 601. 602. Traffic Stop of David Vasquez
David Vasquez is a Hispanic male. Mr. Vasquez am a United States citizen and was born in Dallas, Texas. At the
time Mr. Vasquez was stopped, he lived in Mesa, Arizona, where he was working as an information technology specialist. 603. At about 7:30p.m. on June 26, 2008, Mr. Vasquez left his home to eat dinner at a
local restaurant. Mr. Vasquez was driving his gold 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer. Mr. Vasquezs wife, who is Native American, was riding in the passenger seat. Because Mr. Vasquezs car's air conditioner did not work very well, he drove with the windows down. 604. From Mr. Vasquezs home, located near Gilbert Road and Main Street, he drove
south on Gilbert Road. As he approached Broadway Road, Mr. Vasquez noticed a MCSO SUV in the next lane. 605. Mr. Vasquez pulled into the left-turn lane farthest from the median at the
intersection, and the MCSO SUV drove into the first left-turn lane to his left. Both cars turned left onto Broadway Road and continued in the eastbound lanes. 606. Mr. Vasquez gradually moved into the right lane and drove behind the MCSO
SUV for about two miles until both vehicles stopped at a red light, with the MCSO SUV in the center lane. When the light turned green, the MCSO deputies pulled behind Mr. Vasquez, activated their emergency lights, and pulled him over. 607. 608. One of the deputies who pulled Mr. Vasquez over was Deputy Matthew Ratcliffe. Two MCSO deputies exited the SUV and approached Mr. Vasquezs car. The
male deputy on Mr. Vasquezs side told Mr. Vasquez that he pulled him over because Mr. Vasquez had a cracked windshield.
63
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
609.
The deputy asked for Mr. Vasquezs license, registration and insurance card. The
deputy also asked if he spoke English. 610. The deputies returned to the SUV. After several minutes, they returned. The
deputy on Mr. Vasquezs side returned his license, registration and insurance card and told him to fix the crack in his windshield. They deputy did not cite Mr. Vasquez or give him a ticket. 611. Mr. Vasquez carefully observed all traffic laws as soon as he noticed the MCSO
SUV. Mr. Vasquez drove the speed limit and stopped at all traffic signals. 612. The crack in Mr. Vasquezs windshield was on the passenger's side of the car. It
was difficult to see. It did not impair the driver's vision of the road in any way, and it did not pose a safety hazard. 613. Mr. Vasquez violated no traffic laws and MCSO did not issue a citation to Mr.
Vasquez. 614. Mr. Vasquez was pulled over because of his race. BB. 615. Traffic Stop Involving Andrew Sanchez
Andrew Sanchez is a United States citizen, and was born and raised in
Guadalupe, Arizona. He is Hispanic. 616. Guadalupe is about one square mile in size, and is home to approximately 5,500
people, the vast majority of whom are Latino or Yaqui Indian. 617. Mr. Sanchez owns a home a few hundred yards away from the Family Dollar
Store located at 5801 E. Guadalupe Road, Guadalupe, Arizona. 618. On Thursday, April 3, 2008, beginning around 8:00 a.m., Mr. Sanchez observed
several MCSO vehicles driving around his neighborhood. 619. Later that morning, Mr. Sanchez noticed that the MCSO had set up a mobile
command post or headquarters in the Family Dollar parking lot near his house.
64
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
620.
Mr. Sanchez observed dozens of MCSO vehicles and personnel in the area that
day, an armored MCSO "bomb squad" vehicle, and even more MCSO Deputies patrolling on horseback, bicycles and foot. 621. Mr. Sanchez has since learned that the MCSO characterized this massive show of
force in Guadalupe, which continued into the next day, as a "crime suppression operation." 622. Mr. Sanchez had never seen so many law enforcement vehicles and officers
patrolling the streets of Guadalupe as he did on April 3-4, 2008. In a typical week Mr. Sanchez would see, at most, one or two MCSO vehicles patrolling the town. 623. At about 8:00 p.m. on April 3, 2008, Mr. Sanchez left his house to pick up his
sister at work. As Mr. Sanchez turned westbound on Guadalupe Road and drove by the Family Dollar parking lot, Mr. Sanchez noticed that several people had gathered to protest the MCSO's activities, and he honked his horn briefly as he drove past to show his support. 624. About 30 minutes later, Mr. Sanchez drove back into Guadalupe eastbound on
Guadalupe Road. Mr. Sanchez honked his horn again briefly as he drove past the Family Dollar parking lot. 625. An MCSO patrol car immediately pulled out of the Family Dollar parking lot and
signaled for Mr. Sanchez to pull over. 626. After Mr. Sanchez stopped his car, an MCSO Deputy from the patrol car
approached his window, and Mr. Sanchez handed him his drivers' license, insurance, and registration. 627. Mr. Sanchez then saw a large MCSO vehicle park across the street from him and
a third MCSO vehicle park behind him but adjacent to the first patrol car. Mr. Sanchez heard the driver of the large MCSO vehicle say "that's him". The MCSO Deputy that pulled him over then walked over to meet with the driver of the other two MCSO vehicles.
65
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
628.
About 10 minutes later, two of the MCSO Deputies approached and asked Mr.
Sanchez to exit his vehicle. They took Mr. Sanchez to the area between the back of his car and the front of the two patrol cars that were parked adjacent to one another. 629. Mr. Sanchez could not see the MCSO Deputies' faces because the patrol car lights
were shining in his face. One of the MCSO Deputies then gave me a traffic citation for "improper use of horn." 630. Mr. Sanchez had a message on his car window that said "Proud to be brown"
inside of his car. 631. Mr. Sanchez attended a hearing at the Kyrene Justice Court in Chandler, Arizona,
on June 13, 2008, to contest the citation. Two MCSO deputies appeared on behalf of the MCSO, and one of them testified that he was a detective trained to enforce immigration laws. After hearing from Mr. Sanchez and the MCSO, the Court dismissed the citation. 632. Mr. Sanchez was targeted because he is Hispanic. CC. 633. Traffic Stop of Elaine Sanchez
Elaine Sanchez is a Hispanic female. Ms. Sanchez is a resident of Guadalupe,
Arizona, is a United States citizen and was born in Guadalupe, Arizona. 634. On May 28, 2008 Ms. Sanchez was driving southbound in a 1998 Dodge Caravan
on Avenida del Yaqui in Guadalupe, Arizona. 635. While proceeding south, Ms. Sanchez came to a complete stop at the intersection
of Calle Iglesias and noticed an MCSO vehicle headed north on Avdenida de Yaqui. 636. The MCSO vehicle made a U-turn and began to follow Ms. Sanchez south on
Avdenida de Yaqui and then east on Calle de Mexcio. 637. The MCSO deputy driving the vehicle did not turn on his lights or make an
attempt to pull Ms. Sanchez over. 638. Ms. Sanchez arrived at her home nearby, exited the vehicle and continued south
to the area of her back yard near the back door of her house.
66
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
639.
As Ms. Sanchez was approaching her back door, Deputy Kent and Deputy Woolf
of the MCSO began to yell at her, telling her to get back in the vehicle. 640. Believing that she had not broken any law that would warrant her detention and
fearful of what could transpire, Ms. Sanchez began to knock on her backdoor to alert her family of the situation. 641. Deputy Woolf then grabbed Ms. Sanchez and pulled her toward the MCSO
vehicle. 642. Immediately thereafter Deputy Kent also approached and both deputies tackled
Ms. Sanchez, throwing her down and slamming her face on the ground. 643. 644. The deputies then handcuffed and arrested Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez was transported to the Guadalupe substation for processing where
she was held, cited and released. 645. The deputy alleged that the light over Ms. Sanchezs license plate was out.
However, Ms. Sanchez was not cited for the license plate light being out. 646. 647. 648. Ms. Sanchez was, instead, charged with disorderly conduct. The charge of disorderly conduct was dismissed. Ms. Sanchez filed a lawsuit as a result of this encounter and Maricopa County
settled out of court. 649. Ms. Sanchez was stopped because she is Hispanic. DD. 650. Traffic Stop of Garrett Smith
Garrett Smith is a Caucasian male. He is a United States citizen and a teacher at
Camelback High School. 651. Mr. Smiths wife, Rosa Maria Villegas-Smith, was born in Mexico and is a
United States citizen. She is of Hispanic descent. 652. 653. Together, Mr. Smith and his wife have five children. At approximately 3 p.m. on October 16, 2009, Mr. Smith was driving north on I -
17. In the minivan was Mr. Smith, Mr. Smiths wife, who sat in the passenger seat; Mr.
67
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Smiths mother-in-law, a legal permanent resident from Mexico, who was sitting behind Mr. Smith; Mr. Smiths 2-year old daughter, who was in a car seat behind Mr. Smiths wife; and Mr. Smiths 14-year old son, who was sitting in the rear row with his knees up listening to an mp3 player. 654. 655. The Smith family was headed to a cabin near Flagstaff, Arizona for the weekend. Mr. Smith was travelling in the right-hand lane on the highway when he noticed a
MCSO vehicle travelling in the on-off ramp to his right. 656. 657. 658. 659. Mr. Smith checked his speedometer and saw that he was driving at 58 mph. Mr. Smith was in a 55 mph construction zone. At the time, there were cars in the two lanes to Mr. Smiths left passing him. The MCSO vehicle got behind Mr. Smith and activated its emergency lights. Mr.
Smith pulled over at the next exit, which was Anthem Road. 660. A Sheriffs deputy got out of the vehicle and approached Mr. Smiths car from
the passenger side. The deputy told Mr. Smith that he had pulled him over because he had clocked Mr. Smith at 60 mph, five miles over the speed limit. 661. The deputy also said that he saw someone's knee in the back seat, and it looked
like someone might be trying to hide from him. He said that the stop was part of a special enforcement operation. 662. The deputy asked to see Mr. Smiths driver's license, registration and insurance.
Mr. Smith removed his driver's license from his wallet and handed it to his wife, who handed it to the deputy. The deputy returned to his patrol car with Mr. Smiths license. 663. Mr. Smith got the registration and insurance information from out of the glove
compartment and waited for the deputy to return. 664. The deputy returned to Mr. Smiths car and handed his driver's license back to his
wife. At this point, a second deputy also approached Mr. Smiths car but did not speak. 665. The first deputy did not ask to see Mr. Smiths registration or proof of insurance.
Instead, he asked Mr. Smith if he had any warrants. Mr. Smith responded no. He then asked Mr. Smith, twice, if he had any weapons in the car. Mr. Smith said no. The first
68
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
deputy then said it was a dangerous stretch of road and that Mr. Smith should tell his son to wear a seat belt. 666. 667. 668. He then told Mr. Smith they were free to go. He did not issue Mr. Smith any traffic citations or warnings. Mr. Smith pulled over not because he was speeding, but because of his and his
familys Hispanic appearance. EE. 669. 670. Traffic Stop of Diona Solis and Jaime Florez Sanchez
Diona Solis is a Caucasian female. Ms. Solis is an educational consultant and a longtime resident of Laveen,
Arizona. 671. At approximately 11 p.m. on or about March 8, 2009, Ms. Solis co-chaperone
Jamie Flores Sanchez and Ms. Solis were returning from a Boy Scout camping trip with Mr. Sanchezs son, Ms. Solis son, and two other young boys. The boys' ages ranged from 9 to 13 years old. 672. Jamie Sanchez is Hispanic, and so are Ms. Solis son and Mr. Sanchezs son. Mr.
Sanchez was driving a Dodge minivan. 673. Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez were driving south on highway 60/Grand Avenue
when they were pulled over by a MCSO deputy. 674. The sheriff's deputy approached Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchezs vehicle from the
driver-side window and asked Mr. Sanchez for his driver's license, registration, and insurance information. 675. English is not Mr. Sanchez 's first language, so he did not immediately understand
what the deputy was asking. Upon hearing Mr. Sanchez 's broken English, the deputy asked Mr. Sanchez if he was a U.S. citizen. Mr. Sanchez responded that he was a legal resident. He provided the deputy his Arizona driver's license. 676. The sheriffs deputy then asked Ms. Solis for her ID and for ID from all of the
boys in the vehicle.
69
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
677.
Ms. Solis provided the deputy with her Arizona driver's license but told him that
we did not have IDs for all of the boys because they are minors. 678. Ms. Solis asked the deputy why it was necessary for them to provide ID, and the
deputy said it was so that he could verify their identities. Ms. Solis felt that his request was unusual and unreasonable, as the boys had done nothing wrong. 679. The deputy asked multiple times where Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez were coming
from. He did not seem satisfied with their explanation that they were returning from a camping trip. 680. Only after interrogating Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez did the deputy explain to Mr.
Sanchez why he had pulled them over. Ms. Solis helped interpret for Jaime. The deputy said he had stopped them for speeding. The deputy informed them that the speed limit was 65 mph. 681. When Mr. Sanchez told him that he thought the speed limit was 75 mph based on
the last posted sign he observed, the deputy mocked him, saying something along the lines of, "Don't you have eyes? Can't you see?" 682. Just before they were stopped, Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez had been traveling in
the right hand lane. Mr. Sanchez was driving with care because there were children in the car. 683. Ms. Solis noticed several vehicles to their left that had passed them but were not
stopped. 684. The deputy brought their IDs back to his patrol car to run some computer checks.
He came back and issued Mr. Sanchez a citation for speeding. 685. The deputy treated Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez rudely and asked Mr. Sanchez
about his legal status because of his Hispanic ethnicity and that of Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Solis sons. 686. It would have been sufficient for the deputy to write Mr. Sanchez a ticket, but he
treated Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Solis like suspects in an investigation rather than with respect.
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
687.
Ms. Solis son and Mr. Sanchezs son now fear the police as a result of this
encounter with MCSO. 688. Ms. Solis and Mr. Sanchez were stopped and questioned because Mr. Sanchez is
Hispanic. FF. 689. Traffic Stop Involving Jorge Urteaga
Jorge Urteaga is a naturalized United States citizen and a resident of Tolleson,
Arizona. 690. 691. As of February, 2010, Mr. Urteaga worked in Buckeye, Arizona. On January 9, 2009, Mr. Urteaga was driving eastbound on Lower Buckeye Road
in Buckeye. 692. Mr. Urteaga stopped at the intersection of Lower Buckeye Road and Avondale
Road, which is controlled by a four-way stop. As Mr. Urteaga stopped, he noticed a MCSO deputy traveling southbound on Avondale Road. 693. The MCSO deputy stopped and allowed Mr. Urteaga to drive through the
intersection. 694. The MCSO deputy turned then left onto eastbound Lower Buckeye Road and
started following Mr. Urteaga. At this time, the MCSO deputy activated his lights and pulled Mr. Urteaga over. As the MCSO deputy approached Mr. Urteagas vehicle, Mr. Urteaga noticed a second MCSO vehicle with two occupants pull in behind Mr. Urteaga. The passenger in that second MCSO vehicle, wearing a ski mask, approached the passenger side of Mr. Urteagas vehicle with his gun drawn. 695. The first MCSO deputy (who made the traffic stop) asked: "Do you have a
driver's license?" Mr. Urteaga answered that he did and provided his driver's license along with the vehicle insurance card. When the MCSO deputy asked for Mr. Urteagas vehicle registration, Mr. Urteaga explained that he was displaying the required dealer license plate on his vehicle.
71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
696.
The first MCSO deputy then asked: "Where are you from?" Mr. Urteaga told him
that he was born in Mexico, but became a naturalized US citizen. To this, the deputy responded: "Can you prove it?" 697. When Mr. Urteaga responded that he could not, the MCSO deputy returned to his
patrol vehicle with Mr. Urteaga driver's license and insurance card. 698. The first MCSO deputy spent several minutes in his patrol vehicle before
returning to Mr. Urteagas vehicle. When he finally returned, he issued a citation to Mr. Urteaga for not having proof of registration in his vehicle. The entire stop lasted about 45 minutes. 699. 700. Mr. Urteaga later challenged the citation in court, and the citation was dismissed. The MCSO deputy was trying to intimidate Mr. Urteaga by asking him for proof
of his citizenship. 701. Mr. Urteaga was pulled over solely because he is Hispanic. GG. Traffic Stop of Leopoldo Arteaga 702. 703. 704. 705. Leopoldo Arteaga is a 64-year old Hispanic male. Mr. Arteaga is a resident of Mesa, Arizona and is a U.S. citizen. Mr. Arteaga is a member of the Mormon church and is a small business owner. At approximately 2 or 3 p.m. on May 12, 2009, Mr. Arteaga had just stopped for
a red light at the comer of Apache Trail and Signal Butte Roads. After the light turned green, Mr. Arteaga proceeded west on Apache Trail Road. 706. Mr. Arteaga saw a MCSO vehicle pull in behind him from a lot on the north side
of the road. Approximately half a mile down the road, the MCSO vehicle signaled for Mr. Arteaga to pull over. Mr. Arteaga pulled over on Apache Trail Road near 104th Street. 707. A Sheriffs deputy approached the driver's side window and told Mr. Arteaga to
produce his driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Mr. Arteaga later learned that his name was Deputy Thompson.
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
708.
Mr. Arteaga asked Deputy Thompson why he had been stopped. He told Mr.
Arteaga that he was speeding and again demanded to see his documents. 709. At this point, Deputy Thompson opened the driver side door and attempted to
remove Mr. Arteaga from the vehicle. 710. Mr. Arteaga did not object to showing the deputy his documents and asked him to
wait a minute so he could have a chance to retrieve his ID from his wallet. 711. 712. However, Deputy Thompson said it was "too late." Another deputy came over to unbuckle Mr. Arteagas seatbelt, and he was
forcefully removed from the car. As a result, Mr. Arteaga fell to the ground and his face hit the pavement, causing injuries to his face and lip. The impact also left scrapes and bruises on Mr. Arteagas left shoulder. 713. 714. 715. Mr. Arteaga was forced to remain on the ground as deputies searched him. The deputies seized Mr. Arteagas wallet and looked through its contents. They also searched Mr. Arteagas car and impounded it. When Mr. Arteaga got it
out from the impound lot, approximately $50 in cash was missing from a front dashboard compartment. 716. The deputies also detained and interviewed a young man who had been riding in
Mr. Arteagas vehicle as a passenger. This man was also Hispanic with very dark skin. He was eventually released at the scene. 717. Mr. Arteaga was arrested on charges of criminal speeding and failing to provide
identification. The deputy said Mr. Arteaga had been driving 50 mph in a work zone, where the posted speed limit was 25 mph. 718. However, Mr. Arteagas children arrived on the scene within minutes after Mr.
Arteaga was arrested and could not locate any signs indicating that the speed limit was 25 mph. 719. In addition, Mr. Arteaga was hauling a heavy trailer and would not have been able
to accelerate to 50 mph in the half a mile between the stop light and where Mr. Arteaga was pulled over.
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
720. 721.
Mr. Arteaga estimated that he was going 40 mph at most. Furthermore, if given the chance, Mr. Arteaga would have been able to provide
the deputy with his Arizona driver's license. 722. Deputy Thompson found Mr. Arteagas driver's license when he looked through
his wallet. 723. Deputy Thompson said that the force they used was reasonable because the tools
in Mr. Arteagas truck could have been used as weapons. However, all of them are tools that Mr. Arteagas used in his landscaping business; they were not weapons. 724. 725. Mr. Arteaga was not read his Miranda rights or allowed to make a phone call. Mr. Arteaga was booked into the County Jail and taken to the hospital shortly
after booking. At the hospital, Mr. Arteaga received treatment for his cuts and bruises, xrays and a CAT scan. 726. 727. The doctor informed Mr. Arteaga that his arm was badly strained. Mr. Arteaga was released from jail the next day but could not work because of the
pain in his shoulder. Mr. Arteaga continued to experience acute pain for two weeks. Mr. Arteaga also incurred medical bills as a result of the hospital visit. 728. The charges of failure to show ID and criminal speeding were eventually
dropped. 729. 730. Mr. Arteaga pled guilty to a civil traffic violation. Before Mr. Arteaga was stopped, he noticed other vehicles driving on Apache
Trail Road at the same speed as him. 731. Mr. Arteaga was stopped and unreasonably removed from his vehicle because he
and his passenger are Hispanic. HH. Traffic Stop Involving Anabel Avitia 732. 733. Anabel Avitia is a Hispanic female. Ms. Avitia is a legal permanent resident of the United States and lives in El
Mirage, Arizona.
74
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
734.
One evening in the second week of October 2009, Ms. Avitia was leaving the
Walgreens at the comer of El Mirage and Cactus Roads when she noticed a MCSO patrol vehicle parked in the parking lot. 735. 736. Ms. Avitia was with Carlos Guerra Monge, her husband. Carlos is also Hispanic. As Ms. Avitia exited the parking lot, she noticed the MCSO vehicle following
her. It continued to follow them for approximately one mile. 737. Finally, Ms. Avitia pulled into her own driveway, and the Sheriff's deputy in the
vehicle activated his lights. Ms. Avitia got out of the car and asked if she could help him. 738. The deputy responded by commenting on the temporary license plates on her car.
Ms. Avitia told him that the plates were good. He then asked for her driver's license and the registration for the vehicle. 739. Ms. Avitia provided these to him. The deputy ran the license and registration
through a computer check, returned them to Ms. Avitia, and left. 740. At approximately 10 p.m. on October 16, 2009, Ms. Avitia was on the way to the
store, again with her husband. This time, Carlos was driving and Ms. Avitia was in the passenger seat. 741. They were headed north on N. Reese Avenue from Cactus Road in El Mirage.
Because it was hot, they were driving with their windows down. 742. They continued north on N. Reese Avenue to where it intersects with Meyer
Lane. As they approached the intersection, an MCSO patrol vehicle pulled up behind them, seemingly from nowhere. 743. Lane. 744. As they turned on to Meyer Lane, the MCSO patrol vehicle activated its lights. Ms. Avitias husband came to a complete stop, and then turned right on Meyer
They thought that there had been some kind of emergency and pulled over on a side residential street called A. Street. 745. When the MCSO vehicle followed them on to A. Street, they realized that the
deputy was intending to conduct a traffic stop.

75
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
746.
A deputy approached the driver's side window and told them he pulled them over
because they did not stop at the stop sign. 747. 748. Ms. Avitia later learned that this deputy's name was Thomas Sedlacek. Because Ms. Avitias husband does not speak English well, and Deputy Sedlacek
acted as though he did not speak Spanish, Ms. Avitia did the talking. 749. sign. 750. Ms. Avitia was very upset because it was the second time that they had been Ms. Avitia explained to Deputy Sedlacek that they in fact did stop at the stop
stopped for no reason in the same week. 751. As Ms. Avitia was attempting to call an attorney, Deputy Sedlacek then asked if
she had ID. Ms. Avitia provided him with her Arizona driver's license. 752. After checking it, instead of handing it to Ms. Avitia, he threw it in her direction.
It must have fallen on the ground because Ms. Avitia could not find it later. 753. Ms. Avitias husband later told her that after the Deputy placed him in the patrol
vehicle, he started asking Ms. Avitias husband questions about where he was from and whether he had permission to be in the United States, in Spanish. 754. Eventually, Ms. Avitias husband was taken to the County Jail and transferred
him to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which released him with a court date. 755. In both of the incidents, Ms. Avitia and her husband were stopped because they
are Hispanic. II. 756. Traffic Stops Observed by Socorro Hernandez Bernasconi
On Thursday, April 3, 2008, beginning around 4:00 p.m., Socorro Hernandez
Bernasconi observed numerous MCSO deputies stop several cars near the Community Garden in Guadalupe, Arizona, located on the northeast corner of Avenida del Yaqui and Calle Encinas.
76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
757.
All the drivers that Ms. Bernasconi saw the deputies stop appeared to be of
Hispanic descent. Based on her observations, the deputies seemed to focus on older model vehicles, which appeared to be in otherwise good working condition. 758. Ms. Bernasconi believes that the deputies were pulling these vehicles over
because the drivers looked Hispanic or had brown skin. 759. In one incident, Ms. Bernasconi observed a deputy pull over a vehicle driven by a
young Hispanic male. Ms. Bernasconi walked toward the vehicle, which had parked on Calle Encinas next to the Garden. 760. Ms. Bernasconi remained inside the fence surrounding the Garden and stood only
about two feet away from passenger-side window. When the deputy turned to walk back to his squad car with the driver's paperwork in hand, Ms. Bernasconi asked the driver why he had been stopped. 761. The driver said the deputy had told him that he had driven too fast through a
school zone three or four blocks away. 762. Ms. Bernasconi did not see the driver receive a ticket, and Ms. Bernasconi
believes that he never received one. 763. In another incident, Ms. Bernasconi observed a deputy pull over a Hispanic male
in front of the Mission Market, located on the street corner south of the Garden. 764. Ms. Bernasconi did not approach the vehicle until after the MCSO squad cars left
the area. 765. After the deputies left, Ms. Bernasconi approached and asked the driver why he
had been stopped. The driver said that the deputy had told him that his brake lights did not work. 766. The man stepped on his brakes and the brake lights turned on; they were not
broken as the deputy claimed. 767. In another incident, Ms. Bernasconi observed deputies pull over a van in front of
"Taqueria Lupita's," a restaurant just north of the Garden.
77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
768.
Ms. Bernasconi was outside the fenced Garden area on this occasion and
approached the van so she could hear the conversation between the deputy and the driver. 769. Even though Ms. Bernasconi was standing behind the sidewalk, about eight feet
away from the passenger-side door, one of the deputies in the area told him to move away. 770. Ms. Bernasconi did not respond. Instead, Ms. Bernasconi took out her cell phone
as if Ms. Bernasconi was going to record the incident. 771. leave. 772. Ms. Bernasconi asked what the charge would be. He said Ms. Bernasconi was The deputy, this time yelling, said he would arrest Ms. Bernasconi if she did not
interfering with a criminal investigation. 773. Ms. Bernasconi asked what the crime was and she said that the van had only one
working headlight. The deputy then came towards her and threatened to arrest Ms. Bernasconi again. 774. go. 775. Ms. Bernasconi observed several other incidents, similar to those described He grabbed Ms. Bernsasconis arm, escorted him away from the area and let her
above, during the "crime suppression operation" conducted by the MCSO in Guadalupe, Arizona on April 3 and 4, 2008. 776. Since then, Ms. Bernasconi has heard numerous stories from Guadalupe residents
regarding the MCSO's conduct, from traffic stops premised on broken tail lights or cracked windshields to unannounced home raids based on the alleged pursuit of a criminal suspect. 777. Other than a few years when Ms. Bernasconi left for school, Ms. Bernasconi has
lived in Guadalupe for the last 62 years. Ms. Bernasconi had never before or since April 3 and 4, 2008, seen anything like the sudden, intense and sweeping enforcement of motor vehicle and traffic laws by the MCSO in Guadalupe.
78
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
778.
Ms. Bernasconi saw dozens of MCSO vehicles patrolling the streets of Guadalupe
during the MCSO's two-day operation. Before April, 2008 Ms. Bernasconi would maybe see one MCSO patrol car per month patrolling the streets of Guadalupe. JJ. 779. 780. 781. Traffic Stop Involving Sergio Mueller Rangel
Faith Fagaly is a female and a resident of Chandler, Arizona. Ms. Fagaly is the wife of Sergio Mueller Rangel. At approximately 2 p.m. on July 23, 2009, Mr. Rangel had just arrived home after
driving four of his neighbors' children to the store to get a snack when Mr. Rangel was approached by MCSO deputies in the parking lot of his apartment complex. 782. Mr. Rangel had pulled into the parking lot and had stepped out of the car for
several minutes, waiting for the kids to get out of the car, when a Sheriff's deputy ran up to him. 783. Almost at the same time, a second deputy driving an unmarked white SUV pulled
into the parking lot almost directly behind Mr. Rangels vehicle as if to block him from leaving. 784. 785. Both officers were wearing MCSO uniforms. The unmarked vehicle had not signaled for Mr. Rangel to pull over with
emergency lights or a siren. 786. When the deputy approached, Mr. Rangels car was turned off. The deputy
demanded in Spanish to see Mr. Rangels identification. 787. Mr. Rangel retrieved his identification card from his back pants pocket and
handed it to the first deputy. 788. Mr. Rangel also provided the deputy with the registration and insurance card for
the vehicle. 789. When Mr. Rangel gave the deputy his identification, the deputy said, "This ID is
no good," and he demanded a "United States ID."
79
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
790.
The deputy eventually arrested Mr. Rangel for not having ID and proceeded to
place him in handcuffs. 791. Two of Mr. Rangels neighbors, the mothers of the children Mr. Rangel had
brought to the store, witnessed the incident. 792. When they asked the deputy why he was arresting Mr. Rangel, the deputy yelled
at them to shut up. 793. When the deputies were examining Mr. Rangels identification, one of them also
told him that the children had not been wearing seatbelts. 794. Mr. Rangel know that this is not true because Mr. Rangel personally put the
seatbelts on them when they were leaving the store. They may have taken them off after they arrived home, but the car was no longer moving by that time. 795. One of the neighbors, Eva, called Mr. Rangels wife at work and she came home
when she learned what was happening. 796. home. 797. When Ms. Fagaly arrived, her husband was handcuffed and sitting in an Ms. Fagaly returned home as soon as she could get her manager to drive her
unmarked white SUV that was parked behind their Chevy Cavalier. 798. 799. Eva and another neighbor were also present. Ms. Fagaly asked the deputy who was standing outside of the SUV what was
going on. He said that they had stopped her husband because the right brake light on the car was out and because the kids were not wearing seat belts. 800. Ms. Fagaly told him that she had just inspected the car's brake lights the week
before and they were working properly. 801. The deputy then told Mr. Fagaly they were going to impound the car. He asked if
Ms. Fagaly was the registered owner and Ms. Fagaly replied that she was. 802. Ms. Fagaly was surprised when he said they were going to take the car because it
was securely parked at their home.
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
803.
Ms. Fagaly asked him not to because it was her only means of transportation, and
even showed him her Arizona's driver's license. 804. 805. 806. The MCSO officers had the car towed anyway. The incident lasted for about forty-five minutes. Mr. Rangel sat, handcuffed, in the MCSO vehicle in the parking lot of Circle K
for another hour, while the deputies waited for a white van to pick him up and take him to jail. 807. Mr. Rangel later learned that the names of the deputies who arrested him are E.
Quintero and C. Perez. 808. The deputies were very rough when they handcuffed him and they severely
bruised Mr. Rangels hand and wrist bone. The swelling was so severe in Mr. Rangels right hand that the detention officers at the jail could not take Mr. Rangels fingerprints during intake. 809. 810. Ms. Fagaly also saw that Mr. Rangels fingers were swollen. By the time Mr. Rangel was transferred to ICE custody five days later, Mr.
Rangel could barely move his hand. 811. When Ms. Fagaly visited Mr. Rangel in the Florence detention center about one
week later, his hand was still badly injured. 812. Mr. Rangel was detained and arrested solely because he is Hispanic. KK. Traffic Stop Involving Tammy Charles Leija 813. 814. 815. Tammy Charles Leija is a Hispanic female. Ms. Leija is a U.S. citizen and a resident of Phoenix, Arizona. At approximately 8 a.m. in the morning on January 3, 2008, Ms. Leija was
driving west on Thomas Street near 44th Street when she noticed a MCSO vehicle suddenly pull out from a parking lot on the north side of the road and begin to follow her.
81
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
816.
Ms. Leija continued west on Thomas Street until 32nd Street and turned right
onto 32nd Street. Ms. Leija then turned in to her apartment complex at Pinchot Avenue and parked her car. 817. The MCSO vehicle followed Ms. Leija into her apartment complex and pulled up
behind her car, as if to block her from leaving. 818. As Ms. Leija was getting out of her car, an officer in the MCSO vehicle activated
its emergency lights and shouted over the loudspeaker, Stay where you are! Ms. Leija later learned that this officers name was Ryan Baranyos and that he is a Sergeant with the MCSO. 819. Sergeant Baranyos approached Ms. Leijas vehicle and demanded to see her
drivers license, registration, and insurance. 820. Ms. Leija asked him why he had pulled her over. Only after Ms. Leija provided
him with the documents he asked for did he tell her. 821. He claimed that he pulled Ms. Leija over for not using her blinker. Ms. Leija
knows that she used her turn signal properly because she had been conscious of his vehicle following her since 44th Street. 822. Sergeant Baranyos, examining Ms. Leijas drivers license, then asked her if she
was sure Charles was her last name because it wasnt a Mexican last name. 823. Ms. Leija responded that it was. While Ms. Leijas fathers side of the family is
of Mexican origin, they changed the family name to Charles before she was born. 824. Sargent Baranyos then returned to the patrol car and began speaking to his
partner, who was seated inside. Ms. Leija overheard him telling his partner something about how they couldnt arrest her because shes not illegal. 825. Ms. Leija then heard him call her a stupid girl. At this point, Ms. Leija was
standing outside of her car near the drivers side window. 826. After a few minutes, Sergeant Baranyos returned to Ms. Leijas vehicle and told
her she could go. 827. He did not issue Ms. Leija any citation.
82
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
828.
The two officers remained in the parking lot until after Ms. Leija left to go to her
apartment. 829. Ms. Leija called her boyfriend (who is now her husband) and told him what
happened. 830. Ms. Leija was detained and investigated because she is Hispanic. LL. 831. Somos America
Somos America is a non-profit advocacy organization, with no paid staff and no
membership dues. 832. Somos America is a membership organization that includes individual and
organizational members. 833. 834. Some members of Somos America have been stopped by the MCSO. Several members of Somos America affiliated with the League of United Latin
American Citizens have been stopped by the MCSO. 835. Adolfo Maldonado, a member who is affiliated with Cop Watch, was stopped by
the MCSO during a saturation patrol in Mesa; both he and the passenger, Lydia Navarro, in his car were asked for their Social Security numbers. 836. Several day laborer members affiliated with Tonatierra were stopped during
MCSO saturation patrols. 837. Joseph Larios, a member who is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, was the subject of
an MCSO traffic stop. 838. A staff member of an immigration attorney affiliated the Association of
Immigration Lawyers, a member of Somos America, was stopped by the MCSO. 839. Andrew Sanchez is a member affiliated with Citizens Camera Crew, and was
stopped by the MCSO during the Guadalupe sweep on April 3, 2008. 840. Some Somos America members who were stopped did not file their own civil
rights lawsuit because they are afraid of retaliation. Some members of Somos America believe they have suffered retaliation for speaking out.
83
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
841. 842.
Somos America has also had to divert resources in response to MCSOs actions. For example, Somos America has experienced a frustration of its mission and a
diversion of its resources as a result of MCSOs saturation patrols. Somos Americas volunteers have had to monitor and observe saturation patrols and assist persons affected by Defendants saturation patrols, rather than conduct citizen and voters drives and educational forums.
II.
Adverse Inferences
The following inferences may be made based on this Courts December 23, 2011 order:
9
1.
10 11
Stat sheets would have suggested that officers involved in special operations did
not follow a zero tolerance policy requiring them to stop all traffic offenders. 2.
12 13
Stat sheets for special operations would have included a significantly higher
number of arrests in the categories Illegal Alien turned over to ICE/LEAR and/or Suspected Illegal Alien arrested on state charges than records documenting ordinary
14
patrol activity.
15
3.
16 17
MCSO maintained a file of citizen complaints making requests for special
operations. 4.
18 19
MCSO received and circulated citizen complaints prior to August 31, 2008
requesting that MCSO officers conduct special operations to enforce immigration-related law in areas where MCSO later conducted such operations.
20
5.
21 22
At least some of the citizen communications described above complained about
Mexicans, day laborers, or illegal immigrants but did not provide a description of any criminal activity.
23 III. 24 25 26 27 28
Proposed Conclusions of Law A. Fourteenth Amendment Violations
1.
Defendants are engaging in discrimination based on race, color and/or ethnicity in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983.
84
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2.
Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, engaged,
and continued to engage, in profiling and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members based on their race, color and/or ethnicity. 3. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits MCSO officers from stopping vehicles
based on Hispanic ethnicity of drivers and/or passengers. 4. 5. 6. The MCSO acted with discriminatory intent. Race has been a motivating factor in MCSOs operations. Plaintiffs have shown that MCSOs policies had a discriminatory purpose and
effect, and that MCSOs policies therefor violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F. 3d 612, 635 (7th Cir. 2001); accord Personnel Admr v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272 (1979); Bingham v. City of Manhattan Beach, 341 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Bell, 86 F. 3d 820, 822 (8th Cir. 1996). 7. Discriminatory purpose has been proven by showing that it was a motivating
factor in MCSOs policies. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 265 (1977). Plaintiffs proof need not rest on whether the MCSOs policies were based solely on a discriminatory purpose. See id. 8. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from responding to
popular racial prejudice by effectuating the desires of private citizens where officials are aware of the [racial] motivations of the private citizens. United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181, 1224-25 (2d Cir. 1987) (quoting United States v. City of Birmingham, Mich., 538 F. Supp. 819, 828 (E.D. Mich. 1982). Plaintiffs need not prove that Sheriff Arpaio himself held racial animus in order to establish racially discriminatory intent if he and/or the MCSO as an organization adopted policies in response to public sentiment that were known to be racially inspired. Id. 9. While [p]rivate biases may be outside the reach of the law, a governmental
body may not sidestep the Equal Protection Clause by bowing to the hypothetical effects of private prejudice that they assume to be both widely and deeply held.
85
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984) (citing Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 260-261 (1971)). 10. The rhetoric employed by the authors of the letters in Sherriff Arpaios
immigration file and endorsed by Sheriff Arpaio himself is precisely the type of camouflaged racial expressions that courts have found to prove discriminatory intent. Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055, 1063-66 (4th Cir. 1982) (discussing references, for example, to the influx of undesirables); Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center v. St. Bernard Parish, 648 F. Supp. 2d 805, 810-12 (E.D. La. 2009) (finding discriminatory intent based on statements from residents that proposed housing development tenants would not share the same values and would threaten the communitys way of life and admission by planning commission chair that he was voting in consideration of the health and welfare concerns raised by the public). 11. A government that sets out to discriminate intentionally in its enforcement of
some neutral law . . . will rarely if ever fail to achieve its purpose. Mamaroneck, 462 F.Supp.2d at 543. 12. When the MCSO initiated saturation patrols based on citizen complaints, they
were relying on complaints that contained only racial stereotyping and no information about specific criminal activity, demonstrating the illicit intent of the MCSO. See Keyes, 413 U.S. at 207-08 ([A] finding of illicit intent as to a meaningful portion of the item under consideration has substantial probative value on the question of illicit intent as to the remainder.). 13. The failure to subject citizen complaints received by Sheriff Arpaio and/or the
MCSO to any real scrutiny serves as additional evidence of improper purpose. See, e.g., Mamaroneck, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 531, 554 (To the extent Village officials did receive complaints from residents concerning the behavior of the day laborers, the Village took no steps to investigate and determine whether those complaints were genuine . . . .). 14. The description of certain areas as hot spots for crime, unless properly limited
and factually based, can easily serve as a proxy for race or ethnicity. United States v.
86
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th Cir. 2000) (We must be particularly careful to ensure that a high crime area factor is not used with respect to entire neighborhoods or communities in which members of minority groups go about their daily business, but is limited to . . . locations where particular crimes occur with unusual regularity.). 15. The failure to adopt generally accepted measures to detect racial profiling in
particular suggests an effort on the MCSOs part to conceal unlawful practices and implicitly allow them to continue. See Chavez v. United States, No. 01-000245, 2010 WL 3810629, at *4 (D. Ariz. June 21, 2010) (denying motion to dismiss plaintiffs allegations of racial profiling). 16. Because Sheriff Arpaio and the command staff were the decision-makers who put
in place the MCSOs policy and practice of targeting Hispanic individualse.g., by designing the saturation patrols and choosing the locations for them based on racially charged citizen complaintstheir intent is operative with respect to that policy and practice. See Wayte, 470 U.S. at 610 (discriminatory intent of decision maker is the key inquiry); Doe v. Vill. of Mamaroneck, 462 F. Supp. 2d 520, 554-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (examining intent of Mayor who instituted policing activities targeting day laborers in discriminatory intent inquiry). 17. While the evidence suggests that individual officers who performed the stops of
the Plaintiffs also were motivated by race in either making or prolonging those stops, Plaintiffs need not separately establish such motivation for each individual officer in order to prevail. See White v. Williams, 179 F. Supp. 2d 405, 419 (D.N.J. 2002) (allegation that police superintendent advocated the use of racial profiling stated Fourteenth Amendment violation). 18. Proof of discriminatory intent may be shown, as it has been in the present case,
by, among other things: the discriminatory impact of MCSO saturation patrols, the historical context of those operations, the sequence of events leading to those operations, MCSOs substantive and procedural departures from standard law enforcement practice,
87
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
and contemporary statements by MCSO officials. See Arlington Heights 429 U.S. at 266-68; see also Doe v. Vill. of Mamroneck, 462 F. Supp. 2d 520, 547-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). 19. Specifically, here, evidence of the MCSOs discriminatory intent includes: Sheriff
Arpaio made numerous statements expressing racial animus towards Hispanics. He launched his immigration enforcement policies in response to public hostility towards the Hispanic community, and calls from Sheriff Arpaios constituents to target the Hispanic individuals prompted saturation patrols. MCSO officers regularly circulated inappropriate emails mocking persons of Hispanic descent using their county email accounts. MCSO also departs from normal law enforcement practice in ways indicative of discriminatory intent on traffic stops in its efforts to find and arrest undocumented immigrants. The testimony of named Plaintiffs and other class members provide examples of MCSOs practices. MCSO does not have an agency-wide written policy concerning racial profiling, nor does it offer any in-house training on racial profiling. And statistical evidence of the discriminatory impact of MCSO operations (summarized below) provides further proof of its intent to racially profile Hispanics. 20. To prove discriminatory effect, plaintiffs may rely on statistical evidence of
MCSO bias. See Bradley v. United States, 299 F.3d 197, 206 & n.11 (3d Cir. 2002); accord Chavez v. Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 637-40 (7th Cir. 2001); cf. Intl Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 339 (1977). 21. Plaintiffs need not identify a similarly situated member of an unprotected class
who was not subject to racial profiling. See Rodriguez v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 89 F. Supp. 2d 1131, 1140-41 (N.D. Cal. 2000); see also Bradley, 299 F.3d at 206 & n.11; Chavez, 251 F.3d at 640-41; Pyke v. Cuomo, 258 F.3d 107, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2001); Mamaroneck, 462 F. Supp. 2d at 544; United States v. Duque-Nava, 315 F.Supp.2d 1144, 1154 (D. Kan. 2004). 22. Statistical evidence reveals that MCSO officers were more likely to stop
Hispanics on saturation patrol days as compared to other days. This finding is very
88
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
robust. Compared to all other days, Hispanics were 26% to 29.9% more likely to be stopped. Compared to dates one week before and after a saturation patrol, Hispanics were 28.8% to 34.8% more likely to be stopped. And compared to dates one year before a saturation patrol day, Hispanics were 36.2% to 39.5% more likely to be stopped. 23. Statistical evidence further reveals that MCSO officers actively working on a
saturation patrol were much more likely to stop Hispanics than other MCSO officers. Those MCSO officers were 34.1 to 40% more likely to stop Hispanics as compared to officers never involved in saturation patrol operations. 24. Statistical evidence further reveals that stops involving a Hispanic individual were
significantly longer than other stops. All else equal, stops involving at least Hispanic surname were 21% to 25% longer than stops in which no Hispanic name was checked. 25. These statistical findings are consistent with arrest data from saturation patrols.
All but one of the names on a set of arrest lists from a March 2008 saturation patrol appear to be Hispanic. Even assuming every Hispanic person arrested on that patrol was in the country unlawfully, that would have accounted for only 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. 26. Approximately 90 percent of arrestees on one of the smaller saturation patrols in
Fountain Hills in May 2008 appear to be Hispanic, even though that area is predominantly non-Hispanic. 27. Providing still further evidence of discriminatory effect are the incidents
involving named Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class. 28. Mr. Melendres was racially profiled on September 26, 2007 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights.
89
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29.
When MCSO officers stopped the vehicle in which Mr. Ortega-Melendres was
traveling, the officers detained Mr. Ortega-Melendres for further investigation into his immigration status while the Caucasian driver was released without a citation. 30. Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez were racially profiled on December 2, 2007 in violation
of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 31. When MCSO officers stopped David and Jessika Rodriguez for driving on a road
with a Road Closed sign, they let other drivers on the same stretch of road pass through without being stopped. 32. Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were racially profiled on March 28, 2008 in violation of
their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 33. Jerry Cosio was racially profiled on July 23, 2009 in violation of their Fourteenth
Amendment rights. 34. Julio and Julian Mora were racially profiled on February 11, 2009 in violation of
their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 35. Lorena Escamilla was racially profiled on September 2, 2009 in violation of her
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 36. Mr. Magos and his wife were racially profiled on December 4, 2009 in violation
of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 37. Adolfo Maldonado was racially profiled on March 22, 2008 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 38. Adolfo Maldonado was racially profiled on July 14, 2008 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 39. Sergio Villaman was racially profiled on June 27, 2008 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 40. Lino Garcia was racially profiled in connection with each of the four traffic stops
that occurred between June and August of 2009 in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
90
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
41.
David Vasquez and his girlfriend were racially profiled on June 26, 2008 in
violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 42. Andrew Sanchez was racially profiled on April 3, 2008 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 43. Elaine Sanchez was racially profiled on May 28, 2008 in violation of her
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 44. Garrett Smith and/or any of the members of his family were racially profiled on
October 16, 2009 in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 45. Diona Solis, Jaime Florez Sanchez and the children in the vehicle were racially
profiled on March 8, 2009 in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 46. Jorge Urteaga was racially profiled on January 9, 2009 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 47. Leopoldo Arteaga was racially profiled on May 12, 2009 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 48. Anabel Avitia and Carlos Guerra Monge were racially profiled on October 16,
2009 in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. 49. Sergio Mueller Rangel was racially profiled on July 23, 2009 in violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 50. Tammy Charles Leija was racially profiled on January 3, 2008 in violation of her
Fourteenth Amendment rights. 51. Defendants have acted pretextually, with racial motivation and without reasonable
suspicion or probable cause to stop, detain, question, search and/or arrest Plaintiffs class members. 52. By purposefully stopping, detaining, questioning, searching and/or arresting
Plaintiffs and subjecting them to different, burdensome and injurious treatment because of their race, color and/or ethnicity, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class of the equal protection of the law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
91
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
53.
The actions of Defendants violated Plaintiffs and class members Fourteenth
Amendment rights and 42 U.S.C. 1983. B. 54. Fourth Amendment Violations
Defendants stops, extensions of stops, interrogations, detentions, searches and/or
arrests of Plaintiff class members without probable cause or reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe they have committed a crime or traffic violation (or after theyve concluded dealing with the traffic violation) violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983. 55. Race cannot be considered as a factor for reasonable suspicion. Under Ninth
Circuit law, the race of an individual cannot be considered when determining whether an officer has or had reasonable suspicion in connection with a Terry stop, including for immigration investigations. See, e.g., Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). 56. Though a traffic stop of a driver necessarily results in the seizure of any
passengers, see Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 257-58 (2007), it is nevertheless the case that, absent independent suspicion of wrongdoing, passengers are innocent bystanders who simply have the misfortune to be seated in a car whose driver has committed a minor traffic offense. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 420-21 (1997) (Stevens, J., dissenting). A routine traffic stop does not give license for deputies to embark on a fishing expedition that results in a detention of the passengers that is longer than [] necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 500 (1983). 57. Appearance as a member of an Hispanic work crew and speaking only Spanish
does not give rise to reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation. See United States v. Manzo-Jurado, 457 F.3d 928, 937-38 (9th Cir. 2006). It was not lawful for the MCSO to continue to detain the passengers, including Mr. Ortega Melendres. See Royer 460 U.S. at 500; United States v. Mitchell, 2010 WL 2838614, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. 2010) ([W]here an officers inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the traffic
92
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
stop measurably extend the duration of the stop, the officer must have an independent reasonable suspicion to inquire into those unrelated matters.). 58. Inarticulate and crude as [the] conduct may have been . . . expression of
disapproval toward a police officer . . . f[alls] squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment and any action to punish or deter such speechsuch as stopping or hassling the speakeris categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F.2d 1372, 1377-78 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1990) (invalidating traffic stop of individual for disorderly conduct under Arizona law who was making obscene gestures toward [officer] and yelling profanities) 59. Forcibly removing an individual from a vehicle is a use of force that must have an
independent justification under the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Del Viso, 918 F.2d 821, 824-25 (9th Cir. 1990) (tactics requiring additional articulation of risk of physical harm include an order to alight from [] vehicle and subsequent handcuffing, all done by officers brandishing weapons). 60. Once an MCSO officers stops any vehicle or individual, the Fourth Amendment
bars those officers from further detaining the individual if there is no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the individual has committed a crime. See Berkemer, Sheriff of Franklin Co., Ohio v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984); Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 259 (2007). 61. Deputy DiPietro did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain
Mr. Melendres on September 26, 2007. 62. Deputy DiPietro did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to call for
the assistance of a 287(g) officer to question Mr. Melendres on September 26, 2007. 63. Deputy Rangel did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to question or
detain Mr. Melendres on September 26, 2007. 64. The MCSO did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to arrest or
detain Mr. Melendres on September 26, 2007.
93
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
65.
Probable cause was necessary to remove Mr. Nieto from the car and handcuffing
him. See Berkemer at 439-40. 66. Deputy Kikes and Beeks did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
detain Mr. Nieto or Ms. Meraz on March 28, 2008. 67. Deputy Kikes and Beeks did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
justify the force used against Mr. Nieto on March 28, 2008. 68. To the extent that the MCSO argues that Deputy Kikes only needed reasonable
suspicion because the removal from the car and the handcuffing of Nieto were done in connection with a Terry stop, Plaintiffs contend that, in the alternative: 1) Deputy Kikes did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the forceful removing of Mr. Nieto from the car or the handcuffing of Mr. Nieto and/or 2) the actions of removing Mr. Nieto from the car and handcuffing him went beyond a Terry stop and did require Deputy Kikes to have probable cause. 69. Deputy Sloup did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to detain Jerry
Cosio and request his identification and/or social security number on July 23, 2009 70. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Julio and Julian Mora on February 11, 2009. 71. The MCSO, and/or its officers, did not have reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to arrest Julio or Julian Mora with zip ties on February 11, 2009. 72. Officer Gamboa did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the
vehicle occupied by Lorena Escamilla on September 2, 2009. 73. Officer Gamboa did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search
Lorena Escamillas vehicle on September 2, 2009. 74. Officer Gamboa used excessive force with respect to Lorena Escamilla on
September 2, 2009. 75. Deputy Russell did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the
vehicle occupied by Daniel Magos on December 4, 2009.
94
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
76.
Deputy Russell did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to request
identification from Mr. Magos wife during the traffic stop that occurred on December 4, 2009. 77. Deputy Russell did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a
pat-down search of Mr. Magos during the traffic stop that occurred on December 4, 2009. 78. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Adolfo Maldonado on March 22, 2008. 79. Deputy Ruehle did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the
vehicle occupied by Adolfo Maldonado on July 14, 2008. 80. Deputy Templeton did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop
the vehicle occupied by Sergio Villaman on June 27, 2008. 81. Deputy Templeton did not have probable cause to arrest Sergio Villaman during
the traffic stop that occurred on June 27, 2008. 82. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Lino Garcia on each of four occasions between June and August of 2009. 83. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop and/or detain Lino Garcia on each of four occasions between June and August of 2009. 84. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
ask for multiple forms of identification from Lino Garcia and/or his girlfriend on each of four occasions between June and August of 2009. 85. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by David Vasquez on June 26, 2008. 86. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
detain Elaine Sanchez on May 28, 2008.
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
87.
The MCSO and its officers used excessive force with respect to Elaine Sanchez
on May 28, 2008. 88. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Garrett Smith on October 16, 2009. 89. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Diona Solis and Jaime Florez Sanchez on March 8, 2009. 90. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
question Jaime Florez Sanchez regarding his citizenship on March 8, 2009. 91. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
ask for identification from the children in the vehicle occupied by Diona Solis and Jaime Florez Sanchez on March 8, 2009. 92. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop the vehicle occupied by Jorge Urteaga on January 9, 2009. 93. The MCSO and its officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
question Jorge Urteaga regarding his citizenship on January 9, 2009 94. Deputy Thompson did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the
vehicle occupied by Leopoldo Arteaga on May 12, 2009. 95. Deputy Thompson used excessive force with respect to Leopoldo Arteaga on May
12, 2009. 96. Deputy Thompson and the MCSO did not have reasonable suspicion or probable
cause to detain Leopoldo Arteaga on May 12, 2009. 97. Deputy Sedlacek did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the
vehicle occupied by Anabel Avitia and Carlos Guerra Monge on either of two occasions in October of 2009. 98. Deputy Sedlacek did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to question
Guerra Monge with respect to his citizenship on October 16, 2009. 99. The MCSO and its officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
stop Sergio Mueller Rangel on July 23, 2009.

96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
100.
The MCSO and its officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
question Sergio Mueller Rangel with respect to his citizenship on July 23, 2009. 101. The MCSO and its officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
detain Sergio Mueller Rangel on July 23, 2009. 102. Sergeant Baranyos did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
question Tammy Charles Leija on January 3, 2008. 103. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another, stopped,
seized, searched, arrested and/or impermissibly extended stops of Plaintiffs, pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that they had violated the law. Such conduct violated the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983. C. 104. 105. 106. Color of Law and Final Decision Maker
The MCSO acts at all times under color of law. Sheriff Arpaio acts, in his capacity as Sheriff of the MCSO, under color of law. Sheriff Arpaio is the final decision maker under Arizona state law. D. Injunctive Relief
107.
Because they seek injunctive relief, plaintiffs must also show that the MCSOs
misconduct is part of a policy, plan, or pervasive pattern. See Rosenbaum v. City and County of San Francisco, 484 F. 3d 1142, 1153 (9th Cir. 2007). 108. The MCSO has a pattern, practice or policy of racial profiling that violates the
Fourth and/or Fourteenth Amendment(s) of the United States Constitution. 109. At least the following evidence indicates pattern, practice or policy of racial
profiling in violation of the Fourth Amendment: The MCSO leadership, including final policymaker Sheriff Arpaio, have made statements equating illegal immigration with Hispanics and/or sanctioning the targeting of Hispanic persons in immigration enforcement operations. Further, MCSO personnel, including supervisors, have
97
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
regularly circulated racially insensitive emails, the MCSO has targeted Hispanics and Hispanic day laborers in their immigration operations, and the MCSO has carried out saturation patrols in response to citizen requests for racial profiling. The regularity and endorsement of these incidents by MCSO leadership demonstrates that they have become a pattern and practice of the MCSO. Moreover, and as discussed above, MCSO lacked any written policy, oversight or in-house training concerning racial profiling. This lack of policies to combat racial profiling provides further evidence that a pattern and practice of racial profiling existed. The testimony of named Plaintiffs and other class members provide examples of MCSOs practices. 110. By their conduct, Defendants in general, and Arpaio in particular, have devised
and implemented a policy, custom and practice of illegally stopping, detaining, questioning or searching Hispanic or Latino individuals because of their race, color and/or ethnicity. 111. Arpaio and the other Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with
one another, have engaged in a custom, practice and policy of stopping, seizing, searching and arresting Hispanic or Latino individuals in Maricopa County, pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that they had committed any crime. 112. Defendants actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff class
members to suffer public humiliation and additional harms, and to be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are stopped. 113. As a direct, proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and
class members have suffered and will continue to suffer harm. 114. Plaintiffs have standing to obtain the equitable relief they seek. E. 115. Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution
Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides: "No person shall be disturbed
in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."
98
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
116.
Defendants actions are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals under Article II, 8 of the Arizona Constitution. 117. Defendants actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated individuals to suffer public humiliation and additional harms, and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are stopped. F. 118. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, provides: [N]o
person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 119. Defendants engaged in race discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 42 C.F.R. 101 et seq. 120. Defendant MCSO is the law enforcement agency for Maricopa County, Arizona,
and receives federal funding and other financial assistance from the Department of Justice and other federal agencies. 121. As a recipient of federal financial assistance, MCSO is required to conduct its
activities in a racially non-discriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 122. Defendant County of Maricopa is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona
and, as a recipient of federal funds, is required to conduct its activities in a racially nondiscriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 123. Defendants receive and use federal funding for patrol activities, including traffic
stops and saturation patrols. 124. Federal regulations implementing Title VI further provide that no program
receiving financial assistance through the DOJ shall utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because
99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
of their race, color and/or ethnicity, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color and/or ethnicity. 125. The methods employed by Arpaio, MCSO and Maricopa County discriminate
against individuals based on their race, color and/or ethnicity as described herein.
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of March, 2012 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
By
/s/Lesli Gallagher
Stanley Young Andrew C. Byrnes 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418 Tammy Albarrn One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Lesli Gallagher 9191 Towne Centre Dr., 6th Floor San Diego, CA 92122 ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA Daniel Pochoda 3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 Telephone: (602) 650-1854 Facsimile: (602) 650-1376 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS RIGHTS PROJECT Cecilla Wang 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 343-0775 Facsimile: (415) 395-0950 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND Nancy Ramirez 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x136 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
101
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 2nd day of March, 2012, I caused the attached document to be electronically transmitted to the Clerks Office using CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Attorneys for Defendants Thomas P. Liddy liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov Maria R. Brandon brandon@mcao.maricopa.gov Timothy Casey tim@azbarristers.com
/s/ Lesli Gallagher Lesli Gallagher

Melendres Findings of Fact

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

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

Melendres Findings of Fact

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

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

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 3 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 4 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 5 of 106

Proposed findings of Fact A. Background Regarding the MCSO and HSU

The Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) is a local law enforcement

Fountain Hills, Tonto Verde and Rio Verde.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 6 of 106

Districts are generally staffed by a District Commander (Captain), Deputy

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 7 of 106

patrol and other resources to fight illegal immigration.

29. 2011. 30.

Deputy Chief David Hendershott was Arpaios second-in-command until April of

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 8 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 9 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 10 of 106

received 287(g) authority.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 11 of 106

Lieutenant Sousa has estimated the average manpower involved in saturation

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

Chief Sands is responsible for planning saturation patrol operations, including

Sometimes we have crime suppressions, sometimes theyre handled in a different way.

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 13 of 106

equipment, and radio channels for the operation.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 14 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 15 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 16 of 106

The MCSO conducted a large-scale saturation patrol on June 26-27, 2008, in

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 17 of 106

Statements of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO Regarding Illegal Immigration

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 18 of 106

clippings explicitly advocating racial profiling.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 19 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 20 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 21 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 22 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 23 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 24 of 106

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 25 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 26 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 27 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 28 of 106

most day laborers in Maricopa County are Latino or Hispanic.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 29 of 106

The MCSOs primary tactic on immigration focused saturation patrols is to

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 514 Filed 03/02/12 Page 30 of 106

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT No.: CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS