United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al

Filing 19

STATEMENT of Undisputed Facts re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Peter S. Gray, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68)(Aminfar, Amin)

Download PDF
U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a v . M a r i c o p a ,D oC c o 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 Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Roy L. Austin, Jr. (IL Bar #6228785) Matthew Colangelo (NY Bar #4228797) Peter S. Gray (DC Bar #940031) Laurie A. Gelman (VA Bar #47743) Amin Aminfar (NC Bar #36589) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (ph) 202-514-6225 / (fax) 202-514-4883 (email) amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov Michael M. Walker (AZ Bar #20315) Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 (ph) 602-514-7500 / (fax) 602-514-7760 (email) michael.walker4@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff's Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. No. 2:10-cv-01878-LOA PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff United States respectfully submits this Statement of Undisputed Facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1(a). 1 D o c k e t s 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. 1. PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF FACTS Federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs ("OJP"), Bureau of Justice Assistance ("BJA"), administers federal grants programs that provide funding to state, local, territorial, and tribal criminal justice systems, including law enforcement agencies. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 3). 2. At all times since September 4, 2008, Defendant Maricopa County ("the County") has been a recipient of BJA grant funds through grant awards that are currently open. See Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 4-9); Ex. 2 (Grant Award No. 2008-DJBX-0500); Ex. 3 (Grant Award No. 2009-SB-B9-2970); Ex. 4 (Grant Award No. 2009-DJ-BX-0342). 3. The County received a Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $578,399. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 4); Ex. 2 (Grant Award No. 2008-DJ-BX-0500). This grant had an award date of September 4, 2008, and a grant period through September 30, 2011. Ex. 2 (Grant Award No. 2008-DJ-BX-0500). 4. In applying for the grant described in 3, Maricopa County stated that its intent was to provide funds from the award to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office ("MCSO") for law enforcement purposes in the amounts of $21,316 for parcel interdiction and $76,316 for the Maricopa County Neighborhood Narcotics Enforcement Team ("MCNNET"). Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 5). 5. The County received a Fiscal Year 2009 Recovery Act Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $10,536,695. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 6); Ex. 3 (Grant Award No. 2009-SB-B9-2970). This grant had an award date of August 3, 2009, and a grant period through February 28, 2013. Ex. 3 (Grant Award No. 2009-SB-B9-2970). 6. In applying for the grant described in 5, Maricopa County stated that its intent was to provide funds from the award to MCSO for law enforcement purposes in the amounts of $73,148 for parcel interdiction and $271,292 for the MCNNET. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 7). 2 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 7. The County received an Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant in the amount of $2,429,831. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 8); Ex. 4 (Grant Award No. 2009DJ-BX-0342). This grant had an award date of August 21, 2009, and a grant period through September 30, 2012. Ex. 4 (Grant Award No. 2009-DJ-BX-0342). 8. In applying for the grant described in 7, Maricopa County stated that its intent was to provide funds from the award to MCSO for law enforcement purposes in the amount of $68,399 for the MCCNET. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 9). 9. 10. The County has received $13,544,925 since September 4, 2008, through The DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services ("COPS") the OJP grants described in 3-8 above. advances the practice of community oriented policing in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 3). COPS administers grant programs that fund law enforcement agencies around the United States. Id. 11. In 2007, MCSO applied for and was awarded a grant of $449,999 from Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 5); Ex. 6 (COPS grant COPS ("COPS grant"). 12. application); Ex. 7 (COPS grant award letter). The original grant period for this COPS grant was September 1, 2007, to August 31, 2009. Ex. 7 (COPS grant award letter). MCSO requested and received an extension of the grant period to August 31, 2010. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 8); Ex. 8 (COPS extension letter). Funds may be drawn down for incurred costs within 90 days after the August 31, 2010, end date of the COPS grant. Declaration 8); Ex. 8 (COPS extension letter). 13. MCSO has drawn down funds from the COPS grant, and, as of Ex. 5 (Oliphant September 2, 2010, the COPS grant had a balance of $18,543. Declaration 9); Ex. 9 (COPS grant funding report). 14. The DOJ Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section ("AFMLS") administers the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 3). Through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program, the Attorney General 3 Ex. 5 (Oliphant 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 transfers a share of forfeited property and proceeds to State and local law enforcement agencies that directly participate in an investigation or prosecution that results in a federal forfeiture. Id. 15. MCSO participates in the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 4-11); Ex. 11 (Federal Annual Certification Report for FY 2006-07); Ex. 12 (Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification for FY 2007-08); Ex. 13 (Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification for FY 2008-09). 16. According to DOJ records, MCSO received $3,726.98 into the equitable sharing account it maintains for receipt of funds through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program for its Fiscal Year 2006-07 (from July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007). Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 5); Ex. 14 (AFMLS Detail Distribution Report for 7/1/06 to 6/30/07). 17. According to DOJ records, MCSO received $156,945.31 into the equitable sharing account it maintains for receipt of funds through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program for its Fiscal Year 2007-08 (from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008). Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 7); Ex. 15 (AFMLS Detail Distribution Report for 7/1/07 to 6/30/08). 18. According to DOJ records, MCSO received $126,813.44 into the equitable sharing account it maintains for receipt of funds through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program for its Fiscal Year 2008-09 (from July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009). Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 9); Ex. 16 (AFMLS Detail Distribution Report for 7/1/08 to 6/30/09). 19. According to DOJ records, MCSO received $235,706.50 into the equitable sharing account it maintains for receipt of funds through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program for its Fiscal Year 2009-10 (from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010). Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 10); Ex. 17 (AFMLS Detail Distribution Report for 7/1/09 to 6/30/10). 20. According to DOJ records, MCSO received $31,162.12 into the equitable 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 sharing account it maintains for receipt of funds through the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program for the first two months of its Fiscal Year 2010-11 to date (from July 1, 2010, to August 31, 2010). 21. II. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 11); Ex. 18 (AFMLS Detail Distribution Report for 7/1/10 to 8/31/10). MCSO has received $554,354.35 since July 1, 2006, through the AFMLS equitable sharing account transactions described in 16-20 above. Contractual Assurance Agreements. 22. OJP grant applications are submitted through an online process. For each of the OJP awards described in 3, 5, and 7 above, the authorized representative of the County applying for the award viewed the OJP Standard Assurances and certified electronically that the applicant would comply with the requirements listed therein. Ex. 1 (Finn Declaration 10); Ex. 19 (Electronic receipt of assurances for Grant Award No. 2008-DJ-BX-0500); Ex. 20 (Electronic receipt of assurances for Grant Award No. 2009-SB-B9-2970); Ex. 21 (Electronic receipt of assurances for Grant Award No. 2009-DJ-BX-0342). 23. By agreeing to the OJP Standard Assurances, the County agreed that it Ex. 22 (OJP Standard "hereby assures and certifies compliance with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements . . . ." Assurances). 24. In addition, by agreeing to the OJP Standard Assurances, the County "also a. "It will comply with all lawful requirements imposed by the awarding agency, specifically including any applicable regulations, such as 28 C.F.R. [part] 42 . . . ." Ex. 22 (OJP Standard Assurances 4). Part 42 of 28 C.F.R. includes the DOJ Title VI implementing regulations. See 28 C.F.R. 42.101 to 42.112; b. "It will give the awarding agency or the General Accounting Office, through any authorized representative, access to and the right to examine 5 specifically assure[d] and certifie[d]" that: 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 25. all paper or electronic records related to the financial assistance." Ex. 22 (OJP Standard Assurances 3); and c. "It will comply (and will require any subgrantees or contractors to comply) with any applicable statutorily-imposed nondiscrimination requirements . . . ." Id. 6. COPS grant applications are submitted through an online process. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 4). That process requires grant applicants, such as MCSO, to review COPS Assurances before submitting an application. Id. 26. By submitting the application for its COPS grant, MCSO assured "the COPS Office that you have read, understand, and agree, if awarded, to abide by the grant terms and conditions as outlined in the Assurances and Certifications." Id.; Ex. 6 (COPS grant application, at 10). MCSO further assured that the applicant will keep a signed hard copy of the Assurances. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 4); Ex. 6 (COPS grant application, at 10). 27. In order to receive the COPS grant, MCSO, through Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, submitted the signed award document to COPS. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 6); Ex. 23 (COPS signed award document). In so doing, MCSO agreed to comply with the Grant Terms and Special Conditions, which are located on the back of the award document. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 6); Ex. 23 (COPS signed award document). Paragraph 5 of the Grant Terms and Special Conditions requires that the grantee acknowledge its agreement to abide by the COPS Assurances presented to the grantee in the award application process. Ex. 5 (Oliphant Declaration 6); Ex. 23 (COPS signed award document 5). 28. In agreeing to abide by the COPS Assurances, MCSO agreed that "it will comply with all legal and administrative requirements that govern the applicant for acceptance and use of federal grant funds." Ex. 24 (COPS Assurances). 29. In addition, in agreeing to abide by the COPS Assurances, MCSO further agreed that "[i]n particular, the applicant assures us" that: 6 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 30. a. "It will give the Department of Justice or the Comptroller General access to and the right to examine records and documents related to the grant." Id. 5; b. "It will comply with all requirements imposed by the Department of Justice as a condition or administrative requirement of the grant, . . . and with all other applicable program requirements, laws, orders, regulations, or circulars." Id. 6; and c. "It will not, on the ground of race, . . . national origin, [or other protected grounds] . . . subject any person to discrimination in connection with any programs or activities funded in whole or in part with federal funds," as required by the civil rights requirements found in Title VI and 28 C.F.R. Part 42. Id. 8. In order to participate in the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program, law enforcement agencies must annually complete an Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification form, and submit a signed affidavit. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 3). The signed affidavit is submitted to DOJ by facsimile from the certifying law enforcement agency. Id. 31. MCSO submitted a combined Equitable Sharing Agreement and affidavit, signed by MCSO and the County through their authorized representatives on July 25, 2006, and August 16, 2006, respectively, with a certification period ending September 30, 2008. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 12-13); Ex. 25 (AFMLS Equitable Sharing Agreement and affidavit). The Equitable Sharing Agreement was accompanied by instructions providing that agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ are subject to Title VI and "are required to permit DOJ investigators access to records and any other sources of information as may be necessary to determine compliance with civil rights laws." Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 14); Ex. 26 (AFMLS Instructions). The affidavit certified that MCSO "is in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of [Title VI] and [its] Department of Justice implementing regulations." 7 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 Ex. 25 (AFMLS Equitable Sharing Agreement and affidavit). 32. MCSO submitted an affidavit, signed by MCSO and the County through their authorized representatives, following the conclusion of its Fiscal Year 2007-08. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 15); Ex. 27 (AFMLS Affidavit for FY 2007-08). In signing this affidavit, MCSO certified through Fiscal Year 2008-09 that it "is in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of [Title VI] and [its] Department of Justice implementing regulations." Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 15); Ex. 27 (AFMLS Affidavit for FY 2007-08). 33. MCSO submitted an affidavit, signed by MCSO and the County through their authorized representatives, following the conclusion of its Fiscal Year 2008-09. Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 16); Ex. 28 (AFMLS Affidavit for FY 2008-09). In signing this affidavit, MCSO certified through Fiscal Year 2009-10 that it "is in compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of [Title VI] and [its] Department of Justice implementing regulations." Ex. 10 (Dery Declaration 16); Ex. 28 (AFMLS Affidavit for FY 2008-09). III. The United States' requests for access to sources of information. 34. On March 10, 2009, the United States notified Defendants that DOJ was opening an investigation of MCSO regarding alleged discrimination in violation of the prohibition on national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d ("Title VI"); the pattern or practice provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3789d; and the pattern or practice provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. 14141. See Ex. 29 (Letter from King to Arpaio of 3/10/09). The United States informed Defendants that the investigation would focus on allegations of national origin discrimination in MCSO's police practices and jail operations. See id.; Ex. 31 (Letter from Cutlar to McCormick of 3/25/09); Ex. 32 (Letter from Friedlander to McCormick of 3/25/09). 35. On March 13, 2009, the United States conferred with Defendants' counsel 8 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 by telephone and outlined the nature of the investigation. McCormick to Weiss of 3/13/09). 36. Ex. 30 (Email from On March 25, 2009, the United States supplied Defendants with its First Request for Documents and Information ("First Request"). Ex. 31 (Letter from Cutlar to McCormick of 3/25/09); Ex. 32 (Letter from Friedlander to McCormick of 3/25/09); Ex. 33 (First Request). 37. The First Request consists of fifty-one requests for documents related to DOJ's investigation of discriminatory police practices and jail operations. Ex. 33 (First Request). 38. The First Request sought documents covering the time period from January 1, 2008, to the date of production for most of the requested documents, and January 1, 2007, for a smaller set of the requested documents. Id. Defendants were and remain recipients of federal financial assistance at all times during the period from January 1, 2007, to the present. See supra 1-21. 39. The First Request is divided into six categories relevant to DOJ's (a) Organizational Structure and General Information; (b) Policies, investigation: Procedures, and Related Materials; (c) Training; (d) Incident Reports, Complaints, and Investigations; (e) Accountability; and (f) Limited English Proficiency. Ex. 33 (First Request). 40. The First Request was also accompanied by a letter providing more detail about the aspect of the national origin discrimination investigation pertaining to provision of services to limited English proficient ("LEP") individuals housed in MCSO jail facilities. Ex. 32 (Letter from Friedlander to McCormick of 3/25/09). 41. Representatives of the United States and Defendants met in Phoenix, The United States explained that its Arizona on April 30, 2009, to discuss the United States' investigation. Ex. 44 (Letter from Driscoll to Holder of 5/29/09, at 2). investigation of MCSO would involve extensive document review, tours of MCSO facilities, and interviews with MCSO staff and jail inmates. See id. 9 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 42. At the April 30, 2009, meeting and in subsequent correspondence, the United States offered to provide financial and logistical assistance to MCSO in complying with the First Request. Ex. 34 (Email from Jung to McCormick of 5/5/09); Ex. 36 (Email from Jung to McCormick of 5/6/09); Ex. 37 (Email from Jung to Liddy of 5/20/09). These offers were declined, see Ex. 35 (Email from McCormick to Jung of 5/6/09); Ex. 38 (Second email from McCormick to Jung of 5/6/09), or received no response. 43. On May 6, 2009, Defendants advised the United States that "[b]arring unforeseeable circumstances, MCSO will begin producing documents within two or three weeks." Ex. 38 (Second email from McCormick to Jung of 5/6/09). 44. On May 12, 2009, MCSO provided the United States with eleven pages of documents that MCSO identified as being partially responsive to three of the fifty-one requests in the First Request. Ex. 39 (Letter from McCormick to Jung of 5/12/09). In the same letter, MCSO stated: "As we agreed, MCSO will further respond to the DOJ's First Request once MCSO has completed installation and training on the IPRO system [a litigation support system]." Id. at 2. 45. On May 12, May 19, May 20, and May 27, 2009, the Division contacted MCSO representatives seeking information regarding the remaining document production. See Ex. 40 (Email from Jung to McCormick of 5/12/09); Ex. 41 (Email from Jung to McCormick of 5/19/09); Ex. 37 (Email from Jung to Liddy of 5/20/09); Ex. 42 (Email from Jung to McCormick of 5/27/09). 46. In response to these requests, MCSO advised that it was "continuing to work on these discovery issues with key personnel at the MCSO and counsel." Ex. 43 (Email from Liddy to Jung of 5/20/09). 47. On May 29, 2009, MCSO informed the United States, by letter to the Attorney General, that it would not cooperate with DOJ's investigation and would "not respond to any document requests from DOJ." Ex. 44 (Letter from Driscoll to Holder of 5/29/09, at 4). 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 48. On June 22, 2009, MCSO reiterated its refusal to produce any documents or to make any of its staff available for interviews. Ex. 45 (Letter from Cutlar to Driscoll of 6/22/09). The United States urged MCSO to reconsider its position, and explained: "[I]n conducting our investigation we will consider all relevant information, particularly the efforts MCSO has undertaken to ensure compliance with federal law. It would clearly facilitate our consideration of such information for your client to provide responses to our document request and allow us to speak with MCSO deputies. However, irrespective of your client's unwillingness to provide information about its operations, our investigation will proceed. You acknowledged this fact and informed us that you had already advised your client accordingly regarding the `risks' associated with its current position, including the possibility of litigation." Id. at 1. 49. On July 7, 2009, Defendant Arpaio held a press conference and announced that MCSO would not cooperate with the United States' investigation, either by providing documents or permitting interviews with personnel. Ex. 46 (Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Washington D.C. Attorney for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Says U.S. Department of Justice's Investigation is not Grounded in Facts (July 7, 2009)); Ex. 47 (Sandra Haros & Brandon Donahoo, Arpaio Done Cooperating with DOJ, KTAR.com, July 7, 2009, at http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1187069); Ex. 48 (Arpaio to DOJ: Don't Pick on Me, KPHO.com, July 8, 2009, at http://www.kpho.com/politics/19991075/detail.html). 50. 8/6/09). 51. On August 12, 2009, MCSO advised that it was preparing a "position paper . . . relating to the limited English proficiency (LEP) policy in the jails." Ex. 50 (Email from Sierra to Cutlar of 8/12/09). The United States' investigation of national origin discrimination is not limited to concerns regarding the LEP policy in MCSO's jails, and includes allegations of discrimination in MCSO police practices and jail 11 On August 6, 2009, the United States again requested that MCSO voluntarily cooperate with its investigation. Ex. 49 (Letter from Cutlar to Driscoll of 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 operations. Ex. 29 (Letter from King to Arpaio of 3/10/09); Ex. 31 (Letter from Cutlar to McCormick of 3/25/09); Ex. 32 (Letter from Friedlander to McCormick of 3/25/09); Ex. 33 (First Request). 52. MCSO stated that it expected to provide this position paper by "the first week of October" and asked the United States to "[p]lease confirm that this timeline is acceptable to you." Ex. 50 (Email from Sierra to Cutlar of 8/12/09). MCSO did not agree to provide access to documents, staff, or facilities. Id. 53. The United States responded the next day that the delay until October 2009 for a position paper was troubling. Ex. 51 (Email from Cutlar to Driscoll of 8/13/09). The United States also repeated its request for access to MCSO documents and staff by a date certain. Id. 54. MCSO replied with regard to the position paper that "the October time frame was one we are sure [we] can meet." Ex. 52 (Email from Driscoll to Cutlar of 8/13/09). With regard to the restated request for access to documents and staff, MCSO deferred discussion of those requests until after it prepared its position paper. Id. MCSO reiterated its refusal as stated in May 2009 to cooperate with the United States' investigation as to all "non-LEP issues." Id. 55. By letter sent the next day, the United States advised that it did not agree to MCSO's proposed timeframe: "Given the MCSO's failure to comply with the prior agreed upon timeline and its failure to provide us with access to documents and persons with relevant information, we cannot agree to a further extension until October [2009]. We respectfully request that the MCSO submit its position statement and answers to the questions no later than August 21, [2009,] and that we be allowed access to MCSO facilities to review documents and interview MCSO personnel and inmates as soon as possible." Ex. 53 (Letter from Friedlander to Driscoll of 8/14/09, at 1-2). 56. MCSO advised the United States on November 10, 2009, that it expected to produce the position paper in "mid-December" 2009. Ex. 54 (Email from Sierra to 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 Friedlander of 11/10/09). 57. 6/14/10). 58. The June 2010 position paper addressed only the allegations regarding the LEP policy in MCSO's jails, and did not contain any information relating to the United States' investigation of national origin discrimination in MCSO police practices. Id. 59. The June 2010 position paper attached 85 exhibits consisting of approximately 800 pages of documents regarding MCSO's jail practices. Id. at 53. These documents were fully responsive to two of the fifty-one requests in the First Request. Ex. 62 (Email from Preston to Driscoll of 8/20/10); see also Ex. 56 (Letter from Perez to Driscoll of 8/3/10, at 2 n.2). 60. On August 3, 2010, the United States notified Defendants that MCSO "is not in compliance with its obligations under Title VI . . . to cooperate in the investigation of alleged national origin discrimination undertaken by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division . . . . Absent MCSO's voluntary cooperation with this investigation within two weeks by August 17, 2010 the Department will file a Title VI civil action to compel access to the requested documents, facilities, and personnel." Ex. 56 (Letter from Perez to Driscoll of 8/3/10, at 1). 61. In its response on August 5, MCSO raised objections to a finding of noncompliance with Title VI, and requested "an opportunity to meet and confer in order to identify what shortcomings the [Civil Rights] Division believes exists" in MCSO's response to the investigation. Ex. 57 (Letter from Driscoll to Perez of 8/5/2010, at 4). 62. On August 12, 2010, the United States agreed to MCSO's request for a meet-and-confer to determine whether litigation could be avoided, and advised that litigation would follow "unless MCSO provides the complete cooperation outlined herein." Ex. 58 (Letter from Perez to Driscoll of 8/12/10, at 3). The United States 13 MCSO produced its position paper on June 14, 2010, nearly fifteen months after it was first requested in March 2009. Ex. 55 (Letter from Gill to Kappelhoff of 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 explained that it expected MCSO to provide access to all pertinent sources of information that the United States had requested: "MCSO cannot contend that it is voluntarily complying with the Department's investigation by choosing a selective portion of the investigation as to which it will provide a partial and dilatory response, while steadfastly continuing to refuse to produce the vast majority of the requested documents or to permit access to any relevant facilities or personnel." Id. at 2. 63. On August 12, 2010, Maricopa County acknowledged that as recipients of federal financial assistance, Defendants were obligated to cooperate with the United States' investigation. Ex. 59 (Letter from Irvine to Perez of 8/12/10). 64. On the same day, County Manager David R. Smith instructed Defendant Arpaio to cooperate with the United States' investigation: "My letter is direction to MCSO, as a sub-recipient through Maricopa County of Title VI funds, to fully cooperate in any DOJ Title VI inquiry, and to not expend any public monies resisting the DOJ's Title VI inquiry in any way. In addition, you should have the August 5, 2010 Driscoll letter rescinded and, in its place, provide the DOJ contractual assurances, signed by the appropriate MCSO representatives, that MCSO will fully cooperate in the DOJ's Title VI inquiry." Ex. 60 (Letter from Smith to Arpaio of 8/12/10, at 1). 65. 8/13/10). 66. On August 20, 2010, in advance of the meet-and-confer, the United States advised MCSO that it considered the documents produced with MCSO's June 2010 position paper to be fully responsive to two of the fifty-one requests in the First Request, and that it considered documents requested of MCSO in the related litigation captioned Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 2:07-cv-02513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), to be coextensive with five additional requests. Ex. 62 (Email from Preston to Driscoll of 8/20/10). The United States reiterated that it considered the remaining forty-four requests to still be entirely outstanding, and also advised MCSO that the United States 14 MCSO responded to the County on August 13, 2010, and refused to Ex. 61 (Letter from Driscoll to Smith of comply with the County's instruction. 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 intended to secure MCSO's agreement at the meet-and-confer to permit access to MCSO's staff and facilities. Id. 67. The afternoon before the meet-and-confer, MCSO asked that the United States disclose the specific underlying complaints or complainants who may have alleged national origin discrimination. Ex. 63 (Email from Driscoll to Preston of 8/23/10). 68. The United States responded the same day that there was no requirement that any specific complaint be communicated to MCSO. Ex. 64 (Email from Preston to Driscoll of 8/23/10). The United States nonetheless specified that the investigation entailed "numerous credible and specific allegations of national origin discrimination related to jail operations and police practices, including, inter alia, stops, searches, uses of force, detention, arrests, and other police practices." Id. 69. More than a year earlier, the United States had explained, in response to the same request from MCSO, that there was no obligation to identify specific complainants or allegations of discrimination. Ex. 49 (Letter from Cutlar to Driscoll of 8/6/09). 70. Also on the afternoon before the meet-and-confer, MCSO asserted that certain of the United States' document requests did not relate to any Title VI issues. Ex. 63 (Email from Driscoll to Preston of 8/23/10). MCSO specified only one such request (Request No. 16) out of the fifty-one requests for documents in the First Request. Id. 71. The United States responded the same day that all "51 requests, including Request 16 which you know goes to police behavior during vehicular and pedestrian stops, will help us determine if MCSO is compliant with Title VI." Ex. 64 (Email from Preston to Driscoll of 8/23/10). 72. The United States and MCSO held a meet-and-confer on August 24, 2010. Ex. 65 (Letter from Preston to Driscoll of 8/25/10, at 1). The following day, the United States set out its expectations of cooperation and requested that MCSO produce 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 all outstanding documents within two weeks, and that MCSO allow access to identified staff and facilities within thirty days. Id. at 1-2. The United States advised MCSO that absent agreement to these requests by August 27, 2010, the United States would determine that compliance could not be secured by voluntary means. Id. at 2, 5. 73. On August 27, 2010, MCSO advised the United States by letter that it would not provide full cooperation with the United States' requests for access to sources of information. Ex. 66 (Letter from Driscoll to Preston of 8/27/10). MCSO wrote that "[w]e . . . certainly did not agree that every document DOJ requested is required to be produced in a Title VI investigation." Id. at 4. MCSO also wrote that it would not agree to any deadline for document production: "[W]e did not agree to a September 10, 2010 deadline at our meeting, and we cannot agree to one now. . . . We can advise you of timing more specifically as matters progress." Id. MCSO also wrote that records produced in the lawsuit captioned Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 2:07cv-02513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.), may be responsive to certain of the United States' document requests; and MCSO specified documents within the Melendres production that it identified as partially responsive to eleven of the fifty-one requests in the First Request. 74. Id. at 3; Ex. 67 (Letter from Driscoll to Preston of 8/27/10 re: "First On September 2, 2010, the United States notified Defendants that they had Melendres Cross-Reference"). failed to comply with Title VI, its implementing regulations, and the related contractual assurances; that the United States had determined that compliance could not be secured by voluntary means; and that the United States would commence civil litigation to effect compliance. Ex. 68 (Letter from Perez to Driscoll of 9/2/10). Dated: September 13, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke 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 United States Attorney /s/ Amin Aminfar Roy L. Austin, Jr. (IL Bar #6228785) Matthew Colangelo (NY Bar #4228797) Peter S. Gray (DC Bar #940031) Laurie A. Gelman (VA Bar #47743) Amin Aminfar (NC Bar #36589) U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 (ph) 202-514-6255 / (fax) 202-514-4883 (email) amin.aminfar@usdoj.gov Michael M. Walker (AZ Bar #20315) Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408 (ph) 602-514-7500 / (fax) 602-514-7760 (email) michael.walker4@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States 17

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?