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

Filing 41

STATEMENT of of Facts in Support of their Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendants Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Index and Exhibits 1-4, # 2 Exhibit 5, # 3 Exhibits 6-8, # 4 Exhibits 9-18, # 5 Exhibits 19-22)(Popolizio, Joseph)

Download PDF
United States of America v. Maricopa, County of et al Doc. 41 Att. 3 EXHIBIT 6 Dockets.Justia.com ArsroNaBIRDup Thc Atlorrc Burlýng 950 Fssrs, Nrf, 20004- 140{ \rydlrng°oq DC 2ķ2-75«3300 Fu.2U2-75&3331 wrrw o°slo° coŪ° ŖoHN.mtco[ D°rśt Dl°l: „12756il70 řo°lt: DoD,ff °col@tslo°°oo August 5,2010 YU E-iv'IAIL (Plķlfs.Thomos@usdoi. FIR,STCŅ/.SS Ģ{AIL gw) The Honorable Thomas E. Perez Assistant AttomeY General civil Riehts Division U.S. Deparbent of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20003 Re: 3,20l0letter regarding DOJ investigation ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title YI Response to August pu$°uant to Dear MEssr, Percz: I write in response to your letler on behalf of the Civil Rigbts Division (,.Division') of the U.S. Deparhent of Justice ("DO.f) to counsel for the Maricopa Úourty She°iffs Office (*MCSO"), dated August 3, 2010' I.wish to respond to several of the poinś raised in your letter as well as to higblight certain key issues regarding your assertiűn that MCSO has not cooperated with the Division's investigation rmder Title VI of rhe Civil Rights Act of 1964. L The Division is improperĢ conflating its Title vI investigation into MCSO's jails wÕth its Section 14141 investigation into MCSOts Police Practlces. According to your letter, the Division apparently contends that MCSO "is not in compliance withits obŁgations rmder Title VL . . to cooperate i° the investigation of altegÝ national origin discrimination undertaken by the [Division]." MCSO sŕongly disagrees with this contention. The Division's allegation totally ignores the important distinction between DOJ's Title VI investigation, conducted by the Coordination and Review Section C'COR'), and DOJ's investigation under the Violent Crime Contol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. $ l4l4l ("Section 14141'), conducted by the Special Litigation Section. As you arre no doubt awa°e, Title VI ar°d Section l4l4l are distinct siatutes, each witb diffsrent pruposes, different provisions, and different enforcement mechanisms' ffi s. Őlar Yst . Rcca°rŗ Treg°c. Srtru V!°°Ýy' vÝnn GoŁy. lYňb@E oa D c Tbe Honorable Thomas E.Perez Aug°°st 5,2010 Page2 Yoru lettr ignores this fact and begins witb the unwa°ranted assumption that Title VI-a fr°nding statute prohibiting (for purposes of this investigation) intentional national origin discrimination in federally-funded progan*somenow requires coopetation with the Division's broad a°d illdefined Section l4l4l investigation, which seeks information on nearly every aspect of law enforceme,lrt policy and practice by the MCSO' From the initiation of this investigation, DOJ has consistently made it clear that the portion of DOJ's investigation that falls uuder Title VI relates only to MCSO's jails. The Division's Ma°ch 10, 2009 letter to MCSO announcing the opening of the Division's investigation specifically distinguished betwen iś investigation into Ģatterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and rmcon*itutional searches and seizures" by MCSO, which falls under Section l4l4l and is handled by the Special Litigation Section, and the Division's investigation into national origin discrimination related to allegations that MCSO'Tail[edJ Ło provide meaningfi°t aocess to MCSO service,s for limited English proficiency (LEP) individr°als" in its jails, which clearly falls under Title ( r) VI and isinvestigated by CORI DOJ subsequently reiśrated this distinction in letters to MCSO. On March 25, 2009, Shanetta Cutlar, then Chief of the Special Litigation Sectior° sent a letter to MCSO containing DOJ's "First Request for Documents and Information" and also attaching a letter from Menily Friedlander, Chief of COR.z According to Ms. Cutlar, Ms. Friedlander's letter "provide[d] additional details regarding tlnse aspects of our ŪrwestigatŪon related to prohžbltio°ts ÝgÝinst natŪonal oržgžn džsÝimžnatlon'a Thus, Ms. Cutla°'s letter expressty indicated that aspects of the Division's investigation not addressed in Ms. Friendlander's letter do not relate to prohibitions against national origin { discrimination under Title VI. This fact was confirmed by Ms. Friedlander's letter, in nýich she indicated that COR was "initiating an investigation of a complaint allegog discrimination on the basis of national origin" by MCSO in lhe operation of its jails.l As Ms. Friedlander noted, *COR is responsible for investigating complaints against recipients of feder‚l financial assistance from DOJ r:nder Title VI . . . and the nondiscrimination provisions of the Ornnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.'5 Thus, pursuant to both Ms. Cutlar's letter and Ms. Friedlander's letter, it is clear that the only part of the Division's investigalion of MCSO that relates to Title VI is the I ExhibirAat l. 2 Ms. Cutlar's lener is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Ms. Friedlander's letter ig attached hereto as Exbibit c 3 4 5 řýibir B ar I (emphasis added). Exhib°t c at L Id atz. Tbe Honorable Thomas E. Perez August 5,2010 Page 3 jailg'c As sucb investigation of allegations of n°tional origin discrimination i° MCSO's tU" ooli basis upon lhich the Division could even pośntiatly contend tbat MCSO is not in comitiance rmder Title vI is witb respect to MCSo's coopera!91with coR's investigation of Mcso's jails. An4 as Ůrlly ad&essed below, Mcso bns ftlly cooper„ted with COR's invastigation and continues 30 stand wi[ing to fi°rther assist in that investigation. u. has ŮrlĢ cooperated with coR's TÕtle VI investigation and stands reaŁy to provide frrrther asefutance. Mcso contary to your a°°sert°on in your August 3,2010letter. MCSo has fr°[y cooperated wittl COR's Title VI investigation into MCSO's jails. Further, MCSO remains committed to such cooperation going forward' In her Ma°ch 25,2$9letter to MCSO, Ms. Friedlander requested that MCSO provide COR \ilith "a position statement rasponding to the allegations of discrimination" šutŁned in the letter relating to LEP services in MCSO's jails.T As your August 3,2019 letter rightly noted, MCSO has provided tbe position stŅtemeNrt to COR as requested. _It is atso significant to not that, despiś MCSO's request in the positioa stat,ment that DOJ contapiMCSO if DOJ "ba[dJ any questions or would like any additional informationn related to the Title VI investigation, DOJ has not made any additional requests for information from MCSO since MCSO zubmitśd the position paper. ln her March 25,2009letter, Ms. Friedlander also requested th‚t MCSO provide the inforr°ation requested in paragraphs 43-51 of the Division's "First Request for Documents and InfonnatŪon.' MCSO has complied with this request by submitting more than 800 pages of responsive docr°ments,in conjrmction with iś position paPer. It is significant to nole that, in ligbt of the fact that Ms. cutlar and Ms. Friedlandcr bůth ageed that Ms. Friedlander's letter add°essed tbe Division's Title VI investigation" MCSO understands that paragraphs 43-51 of the Division's "First Request for Doűuments and lnformation" ars the requests that relate to the Title VI investigation' MCSO ru°derstands the remaining requests to relate to the Division's sepatate Section l4l4l investigation. Given the distinction between the Title VI investigation and the Section 1414i investigation discussed in Section I of this letter, MCSO understands that the Division does not and could not, as a matter of law, contend that MCSO's dEcision 6 Tl°e rbe Division now contends that Titlc VI somÁhow mandates tbat MCSO must cooPemte with the Divis°on's Secrion l4l4l investigatiort MCSO would respectfirlĢ request that the Division provido its legal basis for such a contentlon. In MCSO's view, conflating compliance obligations under Title VI with a seParate bveshgśion under Section 14l4t would be an absoluteĢ novel legal theory whrch has no supporl in the s°atuĢq the implementing regtlations, or caso law. 7 governmenl's investigation of MCSO police practices °mder Section 14l4l is not prrsuant to Title VL Asyouarewellaware,section 1414l doesuotgnnttlreDivisioasuĢoenaPou'er. Totheextenttbat Exbibir c at 3. The Honorable Thomas E. Persz August 5,2010 Page4 r/ I Łr not to respond to document requests nade pursuant to a Section l4l4l investigation constih°ted a violation of Title VI. Give°r this &ct, and given that Section l4l4l does not provido the Division with zubpoena lĢs,er, MCSO continues to assert its right not to rply to the Division's reques[s that MCSO produce documents related only to the Division's Section 14141 investigdion. Thus, it is clear that MCSO has complied with Ms. Friedlander's requests for information related to the Title VI investigation and that aoy obligation to cooperate has been satisfied because every request made in the Title VI investigation has been complied with- To tbe extent that tbe Division believe,s tbat tbere are deficiencies in MCSO's efforś to provide the inforrration requested MCSO wottld Seek an opportunity to meet and confer with the Division in order to identifr výat shortcomings the Division believes exist. IU. The Division's threat to brlng a federal suit is prcmature' Your August 3,2Ol0leuer indicates rhat ye° u'ill "initiats civil litigation under VI to compel compliance" as of August 17,2010, This th°eat of suit is premature Title given MCSO's willingness to cooperate with the Division's Title VI investigation" As discwsed above, MCSO has made good faith efforts to coopeŐate witbtbe Division's Title VI investigation. Furthermore, MCSO stands ready and willing to Eeet and confer with the Division to address any ooncems that the Division migbt have with regard to MCSO's cooperation and production of documents related to invastigation of the complaint that forms the basis of the Title VI investigśion. Thus, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. $ 42.108(d), there cannot bave been a detrminstion on the part of the Division that compliance oannot be obained by voluntary means. As zuch, to the extent that the Division believes tha° a federŅl civil suit to compel production of documents and information is authorized by law,8 such action would not yet be permissible under 28 C.F.R $ 42.108(d) bause MCSO is commited to voluntary compliance with the Division's Title VI investigation. IV. DOJ has no authority to compel cooperation with its Sect°on investigation. l4l4l Section l4l4l does not provide the Division with adminisfative subpoena po.trr or the autbority to conduct interviews of MCSO. Section l4l4l thus places DOJ in the position of every other civil litigant. If DOJ has a good faith basis for believing a pattern and practice of constitutional or other violations of law exist, DOJ can file suit on that basis. This limitation on the Division's invaligative authority under Section l4l4l E I woutd uote in this regard tbat MCSO is not awa°e o{, and your leter does not cite, ury federal sÝtute which would authorize DOJ to bring a suit to compel compliance with a Titlc VI iovestigation under these girpu°nstances. The Honorable Thomas E. Perez August 5,2010 Page 5 reflecs a reasoned decisiou by Congress to balance tbe iuvestigative needs ofthe Division against the rigbts and interests of targets of DOJ investigations'e Through your letter, the DivÕsion seeks to shoe-horn a broad police praotices investigation under Section l4l4l into a relatively narrow Title VI investigation relating to LEP services in jails. This Õs a transparent attempt to circumveut Congress's limitation of tbe Division's investigative authority in Section l4l4l cases. The Division's overeachi.g thr°s violates the core sepśation of powers principles that are at the heart of ow system of governnent. Much as the Division may fiDd it distasteŮ°I, in the context of SestÕon l4l4l investigations, the Divisioq like every other civil litigant, canr°ot take wrfettered, pre-suit discovery in the hopes of finding the basis upon which to eventually build a complain! which is exactly what your letter seelÁs to do in this case. Should the Division now contend conffiry to all prior comnunications on the topic, that some portion of the Special Litigation Section's Section l4l4l investigation falls within the scope of Title VI, the Division would need to provide significant clarification to MCSO. The Division would necd to a°ticulate the basis upon which the Division asserts Title VI jrrisdiction over a police pattern and practice investigation, particularly in light of the faot that MCSO field operatŪons a°e no longer operating rmder a2B7(g) conŁact The Division would also need to a°ticulate which portions of its First Request for Docž°ments and Information purportedly fall within the scope of Title VI as relating to allegations of intentional racial or national origin disctimination and detail the allegations of discriminatory conduot, as it has with the jail LEP issue.°o As it stands now, the Division's desperate attemPt to find a way to compel MCSO to produce documenls related to a Section 14l4l investigation" even tbough the Division clearly lacks such compulsory pows, demonstrates a disregard for Ů°ndamental limitations on federal authority in our systern of governrnent. It is particularly disappointing that the Divisioq which of all components of DOJ should be wary of wide- t hdeed, it rs stange that the Division apparently interprets its lack of subpoeoa power in Section l414l Áases not as a °sý°ct°on on ils powÝ, but as an uvitatiou to Ýrgage in Ýrte blanche discovery requests of all aspects oflaw eoforcemenl policies and practices without the focus, Judicial supervisioL ű°d identification of a claim that a subpoena would require. It would sem rxlre likeĢ that tbe draften of 14l4l contÝnplated thaq as °n most civil litigauoD, discovery would commence affer, pursuant !o FRSP Rule I l, the Division conducted some legitimaś, independent investigation in a Section t4l4l prior Eling a complaint. By proceeding in this manner, some good faith basis of for allegations of vrrongdoilg would have lo exist prior to the Division publicĢ smearing the reputation of the subjea of Żre mvestigation by declaring the mere openÕng of the rnvestigation a praise'worthy "accomplishment" as the DOJ has done o in lhis case. l0 For exampte, it is ctear that paragnph t6 ofŰe requsts, requesting "all policies, procedures and manuals" would include a wide variety of documenB that have absohrleĢ no conceivable relevance or rplat°ou to ury allegation ofintent°onal racial or national origin discrimination. Such unreasonabĢ broad document regucsts are rmpermissible rn the context of a Title VI investigation. ,See Uniled Stares v. Htris Methodist Fort Worth,ll0 F 2d 94 (5°h Cb 1992). The Honorable Thomas E.Perez August 5,2010 Page6 ra°rgng governmental assertions of power r°ntethered to stahrtory and constitutional limitations, would engage in such conduct. \-J tl V. The Division has more than sufficient evldence to evaluate MCSO'g police practices. SeŁing aside the clear distinction between Section l4l4l and Title VI, as a practical matter, DOJ has more than enough information to evah°ate whether or not "discriminatory policing" has occr°rred in Maricopa Cor°nty, to tbe qrtent that allegations of such conduct for the basis of the Section 14141 investigation. Indee{ Ūt is difŁcult to imagine a mor Eansparent Sheriffs Office in this regard. SheritrArpaio routinely announces his crime supprassion s$/eeps in advance of such operations. Based upon these announcements, the ACLU, lvfALDEF, other advocacy groups, and cormtless television media outlas have filmed MCSO personnel enforcing the law (including immigration related laws) on hrmd°eds of occasions. The bottom line is that MCSO's enforcement of immigration-related laws is no secreL Moreover, the Division has already gained aooess to voluminous information, including arrest records, that MCSO produced it Melendres v. ArpaŪo,No. CV-07-02513 6ft. eriz filed July 16, 2008), acase which involves allegAions of racial profiling. In additior° a°l a part of an agreement reached with cormsel for MCSO in that case, the Division has access to the deposition transcripts of a nrunber of high level MCSO employees. { In addition, the Division has conducŻed its own investigations in Maricopa Corurty, including numerous meetings witb local individuals and advocacy groups. In fac! the Division B'ent so far as to set up a 1-800 number to solicit complaints against the MCSO from Maricopa County residents. Furthermore, until quite recentl° immigration enforcement activities of MCSO were conducted under a Section 287(9) agreement wittr Immigfation and CusŻoms Enforcernent ("ICE"). ICE conducted its own review of MCSO's immigration enforcement practices and did not find any evidence of racial profiling. To the exte°rt that the Division wishes to obtain ICE's report on this iszue, it should be easily obtainable as MCSO obtained a copy through a routine FOIA request. Given the weallh of available information about MCSO's policing policies and practices that has already been obtained by the Division or is readily available to the Divisioru it is apparent that if tbe basis for a Section l4l4l suit existed, that basis should have been clear to the Division long ago. If that is the case, Section l4l4l provides a clearvehicle by which the Division can sue MCSO. If no such basis eķsts, however, The Honorable Thomas E. Pe,tez August 5,2010 PageT perhaps it is time fo° DOJ to stop its public relations campaign against SheriffArpaio and MCSO. Conclusion I appreciate the Division's consideration of the various iszues discussed herein. Should the Division wish to schedr°le a time to meet and confer regarding any conoems that the Division has about MCSO's production of documents and infomration relaśd to the Title VI investigation, please do not besitate to contact me. Given your threatened deadline to file suit as of August 17,2010, MCSO requests and would appreciate your or your designee's prcmpt response in addressing the various questions posed herein. Also, as a courtesy, I would request that you disbibute this letter ýo the same list of media outlets to which you distributed your Augrst 3, 2010 letter so that MCSO's respotu°e can recive the sa°ne as°ount of publicity as your initial letter.°l ' MCSO looks forward to continuing its cooperation witb the Division's Title VI investigation. Cc:Eric Dowell, Ogletee Deakins Asheesh Agarwal, Ogletree Deakins Judy heston, Special Litigation Section Mark Kappelhofl Acting Chief, Coordination and Review Section ll I noted with interesl lýat thesc outleB had copies of tbe letter nÁarly simultaneous w°th my rece°F of from your assisant v°a email, il (r Exhibit A ( U. S, Deporu6t of Juut°cs RiFb DivisiÝ C°vil AIW qltŐ* ‚'r,laol/ ō.Ŗl ^ttoilq tĢttl√gtŅ°\ DCmtt0 lilAR I () ś{B YTaFIBSCÕŪASS°MÍrL, ShaitrIoacph Arpaio Ővfcicopa Cor°uty Sbcriff s Ofrco l00WcstWashinglon SuiĢ 1900 Phoroýr, AZ. E5003 RB: hvestigatio° of řgMFiccPa 9ormV Shldff s Otrce DerShÝiffArpaio; Tbis is to inftrm pn that ķe Uuited States Dpttn,at of Iustice is comencing on iuvśtigation of the lvfśicopa Cormty SheriFs Offic (IvICSOJ pursuśt to lbc pattem or practice provisious pf tbc Viotent Clbe ConŁol ad IŅw Bnforcemcnt Apt of 1994, 42 U.S-C. md Łe omibru Gimo contol antt safe sbcets Adl of 1968, 42 $ rŅrŅr i"suaion ŗZegd fsafe Ste E Aef), ud prrsumt b bo probibitions against national origm ŕ.S.C $ discflniuŁon io fiUu V° of the CivŪl RieĢś Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C' $$ 2000d !o 2000d./ l4t4l) (:fŌde W) anrl Łe Safo Sbects Act, 42 U.S.C. $ 3?89d(c). Ou bvestigation will foq°s ou iltegeŅ paķos orpractices of disodmÕnatorypolice practices śd unconstin°tionel sea°cýes md sÝ„r"o'.oneoośA'Uy Łe MCSO, md on allegalious ofndiooal origin discriminatio4 inchding frihue Řo provitle neśiafrrt accss to Mcso seilvics fsr linitd Fnglisb pmficicot (tŖF) indivŁlt°als. °° conduoting Łc invcstigation" we will see&to determinewbctber there re violation° of of the Ņ°ovs lcws Uy tUe I\4CSO. lvYe b°ve not reached any conchrsions about tbe subjcct matter ofrci°ls want to orPrat  hc MCSO tlu io"*t°gatioo- IVe beliwe th‚t 1ou and otbe,rMCSO co°SsĢķ;/iŁ the requireoents of the Coķtitutioo and federal law. During the cor°śe of otr invrstig…ion, we will conside° all °elevsot ilfomstioa, pŘtioķuly tbe cfforts the MCSO bas rmdÝAlcm to ensure corapliśce with federŅl law. We also wŪll offer to provide tbat recommeodatio* oo *uyr to imprrove pnacticcs and pmcod°res, as aplopriato- »ovidBd inÔe$igat°sn, if we csŻclude th‚t týere se not systemio ttu ņ°CSO cooperatcs fully witbow rhnt we re closing tbe violations of consti°°douai orotýcr federal rigb6, wo will notify 1ou {" .r inrredŪgption [,ontheotherhmdrwooonchdothcrocssuchviol°°tion°,wewilliuŮnyouof Że c"dÕ°gp śd ',tr…žTt to wort wiŁ tbs MCSO b nocķy uy soch violations. h addilio, we wiltidrotitÝyfinścial, teý°cal, orotberassistśŻo Łtlhitcd Stahsmaybc ķlcto pnovide m a°s°* Łs MCSO in couccting ýe idŻtiŻd alefic°śies. Our enfoścmeotof ķsVioleirt GimeCoŻol odLswBnforo@{ AÝof 1994bas a rmŪety of stato –d local law enŮ°ocoeot ageŻcies, both lrgo śd c°onll, j°risdidions snoh ś New YodÁ C°IifuiŅ,New lemsy, GsrgŪa' ths Di°ýict of Coh°°nbis, ķd Ohio. In neaty fiŻea yece of enftrcing this stamr Ż  geod ŚŪŁ Áfus of statc śal locsl jruŪsdicdons worýiugwitbru b°vc eo°bled ru mttŪnetyto °esolvo ourclainswitboutreffitingb co°fstcŅ tit°gatiot S/e h°ve h°d sŪr°ils'suśss adýassing clains of rational cigin ' invotved b disc°imindionmderTltleVl andŁs SafeshtsEAct WecocowagethIi/CsOto coopem°e wilhouimśtigptio°°'rd ca!.assu°c Ģýatwewill ssck1smi°iŪrizsmjpomŁal disnrytion or°r dorg msy barś on tbe operatioas of the MCSO. Our Spccial Litleario° Scctio° will be bandtingthe in'estig tion incoope°aőÕon withŁe CoordinŠtio° and Rsviett Sec*ion and wiU conhA°ourofrcotoŅ°scussķOnÝCsl4s. ThoCbiefoftbssPoŻialLitigatžonSecŻion' Sbśeth Y. G°lar, may be reacŁFd.… (2@) tl4{255. Sinccrely, "4ryry .AqdrgrvTbouas I∆c{ta King Aoti°g Assistmt Atto°nP,Y Gqeral I CqutyAtbocY MaicopaOomtY Max T9ilson Chairman, Boud of Comty Supervisors MuicopeCounty Ths Honorable Dime J. Humeteil°a Slates AtŻoneY Distrist ofA°izona l}rited i Exhibit B U.S. Department of Jusdce CivilRigĢDivŪsion tt –J 207-s-8 SYC;DHl{:ņń:tG.;Pjc –dalltŇert&llr8.Šn'PflŔ 950 fuurt°l,Ņanlt ,lvÝatt, 20530 W v4'°týgtatDc March 25, 2009 YI.‚, EITEGIRO$IC ņrfD g'g' l'lAIq Clarice McCormick, Esg' Maricopa CountY ņt»orneY's Office 222 North Cen»ral Avenue Suite PhoenŪx, AZ 85004 RE° 1100 Dear Mg. McCormlck: office,e (MeSo) appreciate the MarŪcopa County gherÕff,gwe renew our and pledge to cooPera»e with our investigation' a fair' obJect'lve and comrn-iEment to conŠýct tshe investigatlon-in Ae we dlscusgeŠ, encloged pleaee find our ie efficient, **ur. encrosed oFireE RequesE for Document's anŠ-iŚformatio"f , -*:? ; ű;;Ś-l„ te „i- erom r°errnv Fr1ed13"1:::-- 91" I "" J;šffi;;";-!iŗ n„vrew secgiůn, which provides addftÕonal ": Õ " :l: ň We -Li t_-- n o -^'l ^° scrimŪnation' reguest, Ehat you produce all requee»ed documents and any ma°erials by May 1, ZŰOg.- A6 Óe dŪecue„ed, pl'eaee advise if ofourrequegEais.unctear.PleahavÍ leoincludeanyrelaEwlsh_us »o eea regueeted, you ed addl°,ionar m"terl„r ,e-may noŅ -buc delLvered tso consider. Uateriŗir Eent: electronicaliy should be should amrn.a+inŅ"r-o,.sŠ„Ó-„ov.,--°°ŚterfŠit °"f"š senŅ by hard copy following address: aE the ffi We - Trfal AEtorneY Special' litigat'ion Sectlon CÕvtl Righte Divislon 601 D SEreet, NW WaehingEon, DC 2O0O4 Amln AmŪnfar Werelterateouroffer»omee»$,i»hyouandMCsoorrŪwourd you cial" uo d1ecues our Ūr,.,.„"iig"t,ion. prease ret us }°now if your iiL" i" schedul„ *ee„ittg. Thaf°k you in advance for " f -_-., 'If you or MCSO aŁaft' have any questione cont,lnued cooperatl.on, or concern" tug.idtng the fůregoing, pleaÝe.dg 1ot heeiEa»e to Weiee at' (2021 contacň ug, you may reach'Depu»y űftfťt Danfel 6L5-6594, or ne at (2021 5L4-6255' t,a Y. Cr°tlar Speclal LiEigation gectlon Enclosures Õ E.) NSTTBSÕIGATION OF 1… IŻARICOPA COINT$T ggERIEtr'S OFFICE FrRsT REOLEST FOR DOC[I!!BNT8 °lND INTOnUņTION of aLL of the dbcumentg and ma»eriale 1, 2OO8' to Ehe dat'e of production' For informati<in maintalned ln ;1„* otherwise stated, ššň;"iiš-iŚŮ„cl-'"„-i"q.'ŗst that v-?u ProvŪg:- !1"-lir9,T:l:"'" ron pleaEe provJ.de copies IleEed bel'ow, from 'far°ŁarY e ( ;;:" ; ilš' ;""„;Ó „Śd i a„"ňi iv th" - ??illT-? -!'.:"f;gl-ver ;šq"iiš„ i„- l'„„aiŮ1.'11":-i1:-:1:: -th: iŁŚiŚ„ňtš ;;;";„.v te ķnderet'arid f iÓ:tiÔf"nlTÔ:"lTr. in ltA:::i:' or-the f rre exampre) ' TÓT ňŁ:";š;-;Ô „Ņ;ň;Ņi,, ror prelň9 proyl9: P::"1i1?^:"t ;ši";;Ō;"š-"ň;;;;"i„Śriv, „;- Ůi'-*'"t iol PIg ::trÓl: ..::-y'": t ffi iŌ:iš'Ô;";' šÔ šffi;;il legues, ^ :": ^iu:::Ő f relevanE 11* - Tť aÍ set rort'h "u ;:Ô;";Ji„""šširň-„ur-ievr.w or trovide euch documen's and hesira.e ro ;:iÔ,Ôiš":-„Ś-not ---r r--.-t^ Š°a.rnon» o °nrž information. FleaeefeelfreeEocon»„ctuatodleduseanyquestioor or ns rf, .or*"„„ ""g"tair,g-ctf" reguesE-'thatreeponsive documentss you affirmativery inform uE tnforrnat,ion do noE exfst, we aek wlth. documents ňhat' conEaih uš of Ehe same otr ;;"idŅ lnforma»ion' ;"b;;.tilarJ-y eimtlar iritÔš=ňi."Ł„;ilű„-ű„,-ti sheiitf 's office ("Mcso"), incrudins oput.ķi„"ui """'1Ņtvlsions ' , :t:l^::-:lsr1T:^:reas ' Please die»rŪcEs, ot pi„-ir,"t" (or conparable seccors)res' of Ehe to. uhe. indicate Mcso' "';;;;ing-ief ŗtionshlpMaricopa County ("-County„) govertrmental st)Ūucture' 2. MCSO organiza»io13l For each unit or coŪrponer°E wft'hin Eheto speciaž'ized units ttoi tt*tted struccure, including buts ppeciflc statl-on or precincE ttrat are noE aseigned to a rerponce teame) include ' ' (e.q., swAT, vice units, an'cl-rapid a deecriPtion of: a. The function of eacb unit;i unit b. The locat'ion of eachunit is deployed; each c. tte ar„„-trttt" activating each r:nit; d. ttre pr„ňocol for Ž.tt°enurrr°„i-„rorricers'by-rank'ieelect°personnel for neact unit;and f . I}r" *ltt„n criteria -uŚed- to aesŪgnment to Ehese duties' 3. funcuion and reporting authority \ IdenEify and describe the government enEl»iee (lnEerna1 or of all MCso corponente or or-revLew allegatione of exEernal) EhaE' invesEigate a°rd seizures Eearchee misconducu, i""i;Śķ;-ŁncongtrEutlonal ŠttŠ Af""tlminatory Bollcing' MCSO pereorurel-' The suEents number of awolr° and r:°°eworn conPaia°te sectore)' (or broken down by Precinctss,-.Ņrgtrrűuņ patrol officera' del.lneating Eiti;;-ftt„f"Ņft'g recruite' lieut'ťnants' capEains' agentg, investigaķore, sergeants' ar.'c'Iiary euBerintendents' coÕonel.s, inopec'ors, "o„Ů„nŃŚru,aEaft"o uta a"V oEher "co°rÕnand 4- 5. ThecurrenEnurrrberofa]Imembereofthevol.ungroups' up(s) oposBe," or,ogher eimilar Earygro broken known ae the MCSO down by ptt.irr„i„, šr„iii"t'" (or comparable sectors) ' weII ae °v tp"„i„ir""a aeelgrnment groupŪnge and the prowlde authorizaUion t„-„„rry fireŠrme. řlea»e the ldentify' guch policies una pi„cť„"tÍ", or ot'he:rvrÕee for membere of selecrion cr$„Ii„-„rrŠ-iraL"ing woluntarY grouPg 6. ae r°ersor°neL cer»ified The current number and nameg of, all MC9o -b"tt""tt the CountY r:°rder »he MemortŮŠt* of Agreeme"! Ct°stoms EnforcemenE 1"Y9t1l Ur,it.d ScaEes InrnigratŪonof peroonnel asalgned tso: -i"„it Ņrrrg a f iet'ins and "rrcň;i, Ųi a b. c. d. 7. 8. Criminal fnveeLlgauion Section Śnti-Gang Unit Pnrg nnfůrcement Unlt ConrmunitY Actfon Teams that have had fhe number and names of aII McSo Persoy'ÁIpureuant' to MoL revoked »t°eir certiflcaif"" .o'aer the by rcE' rnclude any sec»ion rx, tft"iltťi °y °qcso or revocaEion' Š„Ś't t"rrtuEion relaued to such convened AII minuEes of meetings of Ehe Steerlng ComnulEtee under SecLlon lfl/f of Ehe MOņ' covering Afr collectsive rrargalning agreementestcurrently rual'ne cor°unand a r f ' Mc$o Ó'i t0. iJ ;;. I ; inc "„-i„ to MCSO'e acc°editation by Ar°y reporEs or euÕmariee relatedf„r law Enforcemen» Agencies Ehe comrnissl0n ;"ň;„iiaEion i -2- Í i r, -l lbereceived , and any other. accredl»aEion ""**", flve yeare, wbethe;;;-;;-l°Űso tshe lasr "rirmaňelv , eought by Mc?9--1n propoelng reforme' 11. A1I reporcs, plans' u'n|-::ltt doct°°°ents enhancements' or . orsanrzatroŚaÓ-reelructurin„l ?ePr?tl?TI otherperro-rm"nceirrprov°:'"iiišrtiaterÁectsed datecofrrently iveg»hatate u under c"i..="„ši„Ů"" "ot"išš"ii"il=i""i"ŠŌtts-itteir „nd seŪzulee; egual fnplement.;i;;;';lšurog'rnternal conrplainEe ; of f icer utrd Drorecň1o"i-„Ôli„„r, šffiš„;Ņ ;;d ;;iecrion° Lnternal inveetlsatione; systems for officere admlnl.err"riÓš*"„ii„"-űr Śr„„ipri"ar!° ttaining; and or other MCSo empl'oyeesi ""pťtif"ionl such accreditatLon' aťcountabilitY' memora°rda' ,l2. All etudiee, analysea' audfEe' inspec»ions' minugeeof,meeting"'."tpotň;;'";;ihŚrdenti»iee'sLnterneLl c9tűŚ"„1t9 or ocŁment fromar review or investigatlve, McsŲ;-;iatfnq' to eearchee and and/or t*sŚ',š„rllň- t'r'" geizuregandequal.procecciŚn,-i'r"r.'„r"gthoserelatingEo r'loe' rnclude any the MCso 287 (gl Progran ""„-šŚ"„tÁ"wing documen»e' county a°ra7or-i°c3o ieepon…e Eo euch wiuh ICE. Se:n°lcee ņgreemenEs 13. rf aPPficabLe, all InEer-Governmental I all' »echnological Purchaeee t4. If aPPlicable, a deecriP:1?tt "f i-„e -if°e r,roe, incJ'uding t'he *"at-ňY rcn Putsuane.:" St:!i:: current Ehe purchased cechnologrl'' location of tshe P"ttķ;"d »ectrnology' and a 15. ņ deecriptlon of where MCSO' 16. dlfferent'"Ł„-„ppffcable' policiee of the CožJfrtY' manuals' lncluding but noE A1L policiee, procedures and procedureB' limited t'o gen"i„i-„rdere' etaridard oPeratLng internal -iŚtlt„t"g' orders, »eLetlt)Ś;, Ůiň;i";; butr„ű„iriitiŅed »o-: searcheg and tt„t' "Ģ"81": -*d correBPondence, (includlng those for seŪzu.reei sEoPs,;;1;ň'--šrrescs obasnrctton of and disorderly .o"aŪtil-pt'oilÁ r"to*r»„iiott' „ p„ri"" "fňi;;;;-iŚsieuing arrest' jueELce, prieoners'' tsransport of "t""trŁ-ŚŚ Bummary orrenee„) i--Ņ„tš"tiorl; . of firearme; eeizure and phyeical' t."rtuiii"l-Ł="t„i"rtrtt„ -3- e document retenEion policles and' tshe document retentlon t' t lnformaL and formal trandling of evidence;-handling of whether fiJ'ed brv compraintt t„Śi"„u pŚ1Ū"" "tiŪ"„i"' rg.t i one mi sconducE itt tu c ivŪ I i ans "iŁňšŲ-n„i„„t-.rlŚr„„ipr"ir"„ and/ or correct lve uš„irrr„iiŠu i,.tr" compJ.alnEr, and- equar pro»ec»lon' acEÕon; "",t*;il;t„i„ti"""; document lte the-1"ūr"„r"g MCSO to L7. saÕIp1e copies of all !oT*" ueed by buÁ not, lirni»ed Eo Iaw enfor""Ů„rri-.„iiviuiee, űi„; reiorurng forme, incident control of pereons reporte, rePorts' pa»ro1 reporEe, .ti""t reporLs' field incid„nt eeizure repor»a ŗrrest-logs' lose, r.aio-i„„"]-„„rr igg;; loge and repoFEs, and and loge, i"ll'rŚg", aesk-ŠŚrgeant -;ň-Ś"t ;;;-i;;ŤgoiŮg fo°rne do'nots exlsE' evidence ,"šň] "f Please so staEe' 18. all pol'Ūcles and procedures regarding-tfe rra{ninq bv IcE for tralning by ICE selecEionŅr,„*i"„cion of °Ņcso-p…rsor°°tűt PursuanE f, to'the MOA' to the enforcements' Lg, ņI1 policiee and proceduree related autlrori zed unc» ions „*ťc-,tci„n- Śf tnr priorft i z.; Ō";-r;„„„iů"u"d in Sect'ion v of the MoA' go notifying ICE of 20, A1I policiee or proceduree related irrunigraEion-enroicernent".tr.'rtvauthorizedundercheMoA, „t Ņ„e"tibed in Sectlon XI' 21. All Policiee Tq-P::::1"::: ::l':::":i ::'fiŚ3"'Ó:šiiŌ:T:iň iCs d"t.t t'ion f acllit'ies ' 22. intake' policfee, procedure" 11rd mar°Żals governLng of ciEizen ar„po"ition inveet,iga»ion, claeeiff"utio"',--„n„provi.de a copy or other ";;Ś complainE" ÓÔŚr„-*l-Ű5 r"rdŪl . oEher docurnenu„uion deeigmed or'išŮ„l'-iupýr", exemplar and for use ir,'t't'„-itti'ti"l inve"tigu»ioll dlepoeition' nou limited to review or "iňiu„"-„o*ir4ttķ„l-Ū"„rudins-b! a1I policiee and rnűt,tA. Ehe MC'O,e citizen compfaini'f;;:Lře cŚmpraint Pro:e-:B outlined in procedure" t„iŚU"a to AppendixBŚi-It'„-°°ůe,i""i"„i"gtand t'he o-rdlnationof s}re-co Mcso' f°anŅflng be»ween rce "„űÔŠi"t Ehe MCSO's provision 23. All policieg and procedures related »o persons Eha» it of inEerpretere, telephoni; ;;-;;hel*riae,.Eo reetrained Õn has detalned, seized' ttt"„u„„' ůi otrrerwise 4.11 movemenE. 24.A11writ'EenmaEerialgorresourcesavallableorgl.vento 'Ei;-;,rbii„ tn"r oqr!.a!.n the MCSO',s cltizen members conPlain"f Process' t relatlnE ňo 25. Provide alL dosumentg or-other fnformation including aIŐ ot p„ii"" misconduc», managemenu'"e-iŮ"-rt"r If'°na'er', arl writ°en grri„;;-p"„.riaua lo McSo MCSO dupervlsorE, the eupe:°°ieorg monltor or rKesuri;;--d;iain how risk of ""]-„i olf"-„.tr' mlsconduct űr pol1cy violation,. excessive lncLuding torul.ous or,-con"ilurrcion"L behavlor, cornrptJ'on' force, Ņis„if,nlttatory law-enforcement' unbeco°tuing an dlshoneeEy;-,*;i-ioipiu"Ņlncludlng managere and ", or conducE offlcer uv'uŰťo officÍrs' euPe:rrisore. TRņI—ING traÕning fo° ne$t recrui»E or in26. ņ currenu scbedule ofexisting'MCsO.pereorurel, from ,fuLy 1, eeryice ur„i"r"g for t'opice to 2008 rhrou„t--J.r„. go, 2009, Ūncludllg tshe,t'rainins tocation of tshe be covereŅi--anl in* Śut"' ti*"' and Eraining- for voLunŁeer members of 27. ApcurrenE scheduLe of t'rainlnggrouPB' n oBEeB" or gl'milar voLunteer r ° t arrd ct°rrent' 28. A1I current, trainlng curricula for new lnelcurriins roll-caLl oitt"""" (i-e-, in-„enrlce training)' c . d g updated 29. A1l. training maEerials, including lnitial.and ICE' rn t9 thl MoA-wlth training *.ňg;Ūafs, reia»Õng addiEion, i;;i;„;-."iuirar"-relatedMoņ' to 10cal trainlns' „„eűrf°ea in gec°ion vlr of the a8 \ 30'InformaEionindlcat'lngMCSO,eofficerar°ilanuarympll2oogeunt'l1r°ualco 1, anc rate for reguired-tn,serr°fůe trŠrtrrog from the Presents. and aLl o»her 31. The Field Tralning offtcer ("mo") ma°°uaI.the FTo llrogram, for documentsg p„rlšiŁi"g ro rhe crlreria t"r--ttt. selection of FToe, Ehe including —-il-ÔŪmlred sampie documente reLatslng Eo »he »raining oi-rro", ana ity for the reporEing, ""cor‚ing, *"„„*„"c ina accor°ntabtf F1IO Program' by precincE {or 32. The current number of FlOe' broken down -5- comParable sector) ' evaluate 33, A copy of evaluatÕon forms ueed Eo otfie"* T'„* i'o°'ti„"„rv ehould- i:;::::,.ŚHištffIt::3tt' PioŅriction of for°ns semi - annual ) err°r,.anat, i""-„g-i;s,r;A "e-„"„i"„l-tűtt "*'ķtr, and endorsed levlgwed ae weII ag how, and-by ''hon"-i;*t=1;direct eupervlsor by corunand p„rŚ"il„r-Ś*rŃr in"tt the MCSO ( person°reL' 1r.,,.1sator) , 34. provide all 35. a:ÓTeaEs' relaEing to MCSO offlcer blotEer reporEs' including, but nJ--iimiced to' arres! and eupporEing entrieg, incldent rePorte' u"tt"E warran…e š;;;;Ū"1--uš"rcins log-s, Patrol-losg' 5adr9 los"' ielatsed !o arreste bv vfdeotapee. ana šy-ŚňķŚ" ŅocumeŮiň …lre preeent'' to r' 2008 MCSo officer fro„--3"tt"Š"y documenEation-' including All comtr°Iafnts and accompanyingr:niawful eearch and seizure reeolu»lon, if any, relaLed to including anV cory]aintB or or dlscrlmÕnauofi'Śoflcfttg,euU*ltted-or generaled purauanE ac companying ŅocŁmšntaEion io ep-p"t„ix B of »he MoA' documenEe MCSO ACCOpI{TņBfLIrr for 36. Describe dieciplinary and appeal Proceases 37. IdenEify have ariee°° 38. A list' of all- incidents in whtch confllcts and tshe order or beEween l°c"Ű-riÔ„„,'-sr"rrarrššl-„"4.pol1cieedeecribed in direction of a eupe:rrisory ice offfňer' -as deecrlpuion of »he nature secElon xr ot--tr." MoA. r„.lu„"-„ patties and direcEivee of tlre "or,rŪi"il-'t't "p""rii„ conflict, if anv' involved, ";š-;ir.-;„"„i..riůtr-oi ttt. pendlng' or (whether 39. A IisE of all filed crÕmi;i dismiseed' ;;;;;' rttŗrňu*enue or arrest's' reeolved) civil and any Bworn of or again„t »he CounEy utt„7ot -the 'MCSo-and/or geizureg or equal officere tti„t„š-tů t"ticr°"„'„"a protectio"-f;;;'Januaryr'-„oűs-""tilt'hepresentr-fnclude »hoee personnel.or en»lt'ies or correcEive acEion reconmtend u"„/"i Õmpoee dieciplinary equal ProtecŁIon '„„‚iűitesand seizures and reLated u" ;;;;;i;"" bY Mcso Pereonnel' autshorized Lo review -6- {) of the alleged Lnciden» and conplaint, -. oi arrest, Ehe „amee of the officers specified indl-ctment, 1n the complaint, lndictment, or arreE°t, and the out'come' tha» a1eo incluŅ„ an'-data in tbe poseessLon of the MCSOregult of ;ķiber of prosecķtione dismlesed as a t"lu"r"" Eh; a judictaf ůrliorecutoilal flr°dlng of .offlcer mleconduct related to √ffňcUuating gearches oi eeLzuree and equal Ehe case number protection PracE1cee. for mor°:itoring or audlting tshe 40. Deecrlption of, Mcso' s system officerE, grguPs of of,ficere j-ndividual MCSO prac°i„es of Ůpo69eeo or ginuilar groupe, with a°rd volunte„r membere of reepect to searchee and selzuree or equal-protection " "earJ.y pr.štic.r (e-g-, an "early warning,pro»ocole,identificatfon,' if any, or ored-ffaffiŗ" syEten)-and »he off,lcers' Iden»tfy eerablŪeh"Š-ň„i'a"aitng wlth "at-riek" for inputstlng dat'a the pereonnei-.r"Ņ/o" u„ft reeponeibl.e inEotheayatemi-forpreparlnganyinf,ormaLion, t'manaÁtemen» reporteiden ifylng.'a» e \- itnck" offišere°' and fůr revlewingreLated'to these repor»s' a r olEcrpline/corrective action - 4L- A l1et of all current or former MCSo pereonr°eI reconunended reaBorr for »erminŗiion/arecf.pline or correctiwe ac»lon, the whe»her alecfpline or correc»ive acgion, nature for »he r"Ś„rr*uitŅťa di.Šcfplfn"-„i ŚorrectLve „ction qas imposed, and »heimposed and duragf"l"i-„ty diecipline ož cotrŤctive action from .Tanuar:f 1, 2008 to the preeen»' °nainEaÕned bY the MCSO oursuant to maintaining cornpliance $ri»h the MoA. Include „tty t"qotete made by ICE f,or epeciflc q { Eracking data. IJ-IMIIED ENGITLSE PROEJ:CIENCT Eo any of any PleaeeprovŪdet'hefollowingJ'nf,ormrequested'wiEhrespcoqriee ation.and, provide ecE -trocedure oi dat't policY, Pi;, versions.i" Śri".t for the time period ifanuar-t° L, 200? Eo tbe plesent, unless oEherrŔise etsaEed: held in 43. The breakdown of the number of lnmatea/detaineeg by race r,ent city, _and each of ur„"šc„ű i„il", including tshewl'hin each race and narlonal ""iši". "ioaiŚ"tu how m„ny,uhg primary languages. national o;r„r;; are r,Ep. Idenrify gpokenbyth„I-rEPpereoneand.uheLota]-numberwÕt,hineach -7- 44. awar"';;'Ł; pi„"°√r"iu-ůs orprocedut„„Šrrršr°etweŚi;{-;i-ňrreu!'soJail' 'preaee each jaite provlde Ś„jr*Śi-ňrri„-r"i„r*"ri"" for " and procedures regarding the -iŚonJ-„"„e Coples of all MCso policieeri'ňrt„- Š.""ript' lon of aL L egat ions 45. ioneŅvi e i r ar ior, third paragraph of-tŮL letEer from' !ŅerrŪIv in Ehe etat'e the purpoee for Friedlander (šttacrreŅ) ' rÓ'„Ņ„iii„n' »he forme, af°d whetsher tshe formg,'"ýšŚ-!iiu-°°Űņo-°šg;;;iű. Also. pleage p°ovide EŐ°e forms are given ro arr=lišii„tš] eopfes"f;iIň;*t"thaE.r"rrt;;;submitEeŚšceaclprior CS÷ ti;i; liiil-i"= r,he year °ofM Eo the ia*s, incr.uding rhe Šate of thie requeaE' vtelts with I°EP made e Provide language gloup' PJeaeand ilanuar-° L eprif 1, ilulY 1, and 15, 2OOg , ' 1 and March October 11 2008' and proceduree regardlng Copies of all MCSO JaŪl poLiclee i"„ii„r"g .irl Pqlieh-on]'v n°Iee' r,Ep 1nÕia»."*Śrrš-iŪrŪr„i",pt"„„Ņ"""„ related t'o tŐ°e rncLude .,,v p„rfoiee and i°„-rtrrŅ parasraph or »he tetter arlegaufo"" šš;ii„a-Ô" t„iu„„rr„Ņ) - and-tt°oge relaEed Eo frorn MerriiyÔš;ŚÓšŅ„-ti pbone' in Person' interacting'with IrBP Person" ottt the transLatŪon or vital coPy of throush tnJ Łš!Ų;e; „r;;;--Iu„ rncl-ude a documente, and any oEher-t"i„i""1-*„aiu' ' and t'he da»e it' MCSO,s lŅar°guage Accesa "f."i-it--„nš-exiete, c ost poJ'lclee wen»int'oťftťcc'Pleaee"Ū"„-"tÁfainhowMIfs'the'affare t-Őt. p'an.-- lbie lnformat,lon for Łarruary an interPreter' tso aI]otl fnmaEes/deEaineee are ""tr.dttled Q]ÓT pre MCSO received anv 47. Copies of al-l complaintss agaŪnst darŅ*ši-i°Ô„-iesuegE, relatins in from r,ro yeara ;;i";-ň-rhe in the }et'ter way Eo MerrÕly",,v,Śi-ňr,„-ui-r.guuiŠ"„-a„„„'i°"d inc}udefindinse 9 rri„šr„"„"'-lŚ…uu"t,„„l.P;-;űte of the thegtep of leae taken to "Š„i„"s each- """'pi„ŌŚi' anyinvesuig„tl„,.",the"";;;;'"tut"ň.of,eain compJ'aJ.nt, ch connection with during Ehe 48. and copre"'Śi";;-Ūr,i„=rŚ.i;;';"$;;„„ Ehe comPlain»' procedures A eopy of MCSO'e policÕee and for handling complain»",''ii"r"„ingEhoee--ŠriegingdiecrimiareEI°EP' rf the na ionor ptšl'išŤ s„rvice; ;;-;ň;ůne who transla»ed inEo failure i„'„„-r'"l'e been procedur"o š„;;;-;űi;i;; e" a copy of please provide any langru"gš'„ttt„t-trt-ut Bngrish' thűse tranelatione' -8- rl. ŗ {} 49 se:rvlce agreement . A copy, if appllcýl"l ?Ii"to'e ae welJ ae data showing t,elephonl" li't"tpteler ""oti„„' sewice and n'mber or c„fre „orrducted ķii„igŮ-tŁť-t'erept°onlc Ehe languagee ut'llized' tralnllg ttni-gllale and records of Erainlng 50. Coples otprovJ'ded to MCSo „ltft on Ehe uee of tshe telephonic segel'ong encounterE wlth I'EP in»erpreE"ķro' Eenrice, ."„-„"-rt-tdJ.ing a°ld-encor°nt,er statietlce' Dereons, as well ae att,end„"-Ôr„t," if available' of alL MCSO' jatl etsaff ligted 5l.. pu.t or, langruage.capabillties pt"tuices' includlns by faciJ-iryl-ŮŪrittgĢ1?1? „„ ueed on the Job' and incen»ive"tŚrÓ„i-ň„"-urrr"g"„t- "ritr" of bllinsual staff ' any proceu"iš;Ô"i„ii„„-Eš'š!„rdr"*"t, with a I Exhibit C U,S. Deparbent of Ju°tice Civil RiEbts Division 'I) Ż Coqdnst,n a°d ŖsvrÝ°. Scr°loa - N\YR 950 PÝotrytvÝrilo ‚vcnttt, Ntl ,laķngon DC 205t0 i,lAR 2 5 śfp VIAELEC'TROMC AND U.S. MAIL Cla°ice McCormiclq Esq. Maricopa County Atomey's Office 2?2 North Cental Avenue Suite ll00 PboenŪ:{" AZ 85004 ' . Re: ComolaintNo. 171-08-21 Ma°icopa Cgunty-(ŰZ) SheritrsOffice Dear lvls. MoCormick: As we Dotified you by letter addressed to ShedtrJoseph Arpaio, dated MŻch 10, 2009, Żom Acting Assistant Attomey General loretta King, the Coordination and Review Segtion (COfr), Civil Rigbts Division, U.S. De,parhent of Justice (DO–, is initiating an investig*Ūon of ŗ co.ptti"t aueeing disqimination on the bśis of natio°al origin (IŁspaŻic) by the Muicopa Co°nty Sheriffs OfŁce (MCSO) in the operation of its jail frcilities. This investigation is being conducted in cooperatiou with the Speoial Litigation Sestion of the Civil RigbB Division Please note that or°° decision to initiate an investŪgation does not reflect any determination as to the merits of the complaint. Our goat is to investigśe this mŅtter in a fai° md impartial mśner, add to work witb you to reach a pmdtrotive and amicable resolution. Tbe conplaint alleges thÝt the MCSO lacks a language assistauce policy for limited F.nglis! proficient (L^EF) inrrates as set forth in DOJ's LEP Recipient Guidauce Docume,nt policy in its jails th°t discrimi°ates against LEP inmates' learAoseA° and also has an Engtish-only Tbe complaint allegś tbat dete'ntion officers, wentbosewho śe bilingual in Spaniqh, are requiredio speak to inmetes in Engtish at all times, exce,pt in case of an emergency, thereby i.ĢAing taogpugr access for i°mśes. Futhe°, the complaint allegas that because of tbe gnglsh-ůdy policy in tbe jails, LEP inmates are at risk for inadequate medical cśe due to tbe lang°age barrier (e,g., potential misdŪagposis, incorrect administration of medications)' The conplai* aso states tbat mandatory classes on goveÓ°ment, criminal justice, and othÝ topics ilissriminate against LEP ins°ates becausethey a°e condusted inEnglisb. Tbe complaintaotes tbat Łe MCSO provides an Euglish language class, but śserts tbat the lrvo'week coruse is not sufficient to renedy tbe problems posed Ģ 1Ģs F-°glisĢ-only po)icy, h°rthermore, the complaint { -2alleges tbat tbÁ MCSO Scbedules LEP inmatś 1o meet with their dtorDeys aud corut-appoinfed interpretecs at'times wbe,n interpr,eters are offe,n r°navailable ctue to tbeif regular couýoou dt°ties, tUrtrby inpedi°g LBP iD°nates Żom meeting $rilh ibeir attoneys. In addition" tbe complaint assertr Oat tt" MCSO website, whicb contains dascripions of innÝte pr-ograns' FAQs, aud visitstio° information geared to the public, is i° English only, tbereby inpeding LEP inmŅte md visitor access to inportant informŅtio°' Tbe complaint fi°tber allegś thÝt the MCSO jait visitEtion polcy disc°ininŅtes on tbe. basis of Dationalorigin and linited Englisb pmficie,lrcy. The complaint assÝts Łat the policy requires visitors to presÝt identification and Żll out a visitatiou request form with detailed of everry visitor. The questŪous about citizroship status and that Ņ si°ĢĢ°ohip obeck is complain alleges tbat this poticy is implemented in a'44r"'er that is discriminatory toward gispa°°c and limitcd F.nglish p°eficient visitors. In particular, the complaint claims thet, in pr*tio", Hiqpanic visitors arežeÁirÝ to sr°bmit tbe forms, u°bereas otbers me no« and tbe forms *qry{ are °ot available in languages otber than Engltý. COR is rcqponsible for investigśing complaiuts against recip-ients of federŅl Żnancial 42 assisra°ce Żom DŲJ rmder TŪtle VI of the Civil Rigbti Act of 1^9!a (Title Vf), as aurended" provisions of tbe O1ÝUtts Gime Contoland U.S.d $ 2000d et seq.,a°d the uondiscrimioation Safe StrBs Ac't of li68 ("Safe Stests Acf), as amended, 42 U.S.C. $ 3789d(c). Togetber, tb.r. rtutośr probibit disŰrimination on the basis of °ace, color, national orig°t} sÝ<" or religion by'recipieob űf pO° śsistauce, inctuding erauts provided tbrough DOJ's Offioe of Justice …"grķ* and tbe OEEce of Community OrŪenśd Policing Services. Sbared assets from the CriuinŅl Division,s A°set Forfeitrue and Money Laundering Section also coustitute federat fi°a°cial assistarc from DOJ. The Deparme{'s recipie,nts iuslž°de police and sberiffs' a"fattmeots, state depaŮments of conůtions, a°d other entities. Tbe MCSO is a recipient of a° federal finanoial assis6°cŅ Żom DOJ an4 theśfo°e, we have jurisdiction to conduct investigation oftbe issues mised in this complaint. tbe co°°se of investigating admin°sŁative complaints against reciĢients of DOJ'S . (ADR) is appropriaś' assistance, COR ssks to deterķine whethe° altemative dispute resolution goat ůf epn is to e,lrte° iato a vohmtary compliance agreement tbat resolves the conce°ns tte the complaint' If the raise„ witbout making a fo°mal determinatŪon concÝmiug the merits of a voluntary rśolution recipient does uot Ővisb to eugage in A–R or if it is °ot possible to achiwe the investigŗrtion, COR may conduct a Ů°ll investigation of ttre issues i° this matter early in if the °aised. (At any time during tbis investigation, howwer, flĢft °smnins apossibility ii interesteŅ in prusnring a voluutary resolution of the matter.) ,r"ipi*ž sUouiŅ decitle it I° , of tbe Generally, wben an adminisrative investigation is completed, the formal results to the recipient and the complainant in a Ůndings lettr If COR investigśion are couveyed attempts śe made believes thst fis investiiśion de°no°srates u°lavķ;l dissimiuatiou, howevcr, issubg such a letter' If ś agleemeŻt cannot be °eached on a remedy' to resolve tbe matter be?ore ar° administative hearing to an enforceme,nt actiou may be initiśed. Tbis may take the form of to the programs and activities of the recipient agocy' or terminate DOJ's frnaocial assistance q..J Ņ -3may iuvolve otber meaqs of cnforceneirt aulhorized by lqw, including °efrral to sectÕon fof corut ecrforcenenL lequest thd the MCSO ' As an initial stsp b orn investĢalioq of us wiih a position statsmŖot respondiug to the allegations of discrimiauion, as provide i\rmrrŚ°iz d abovc. Io addition, please trovide the i°formstiou requested in fr 43-51 of tbe enclosed 'Tirst Regrrest for Docr°oents a°d Information " Please also feel free to send any additio°al information tbat tbe MCSO would like the DOJ to consider in rnaking a determination a DOi tirigafr°g ' this i° this case. We śe obligated to inform you tbat no oDe u°‚ny ŪDtinidate, tbreate.n, eoerce' or engage in otber disuiminatory or retalŪatory condust against anyone becarue be or.sbe has either takeo action or particiĢated in an action to securc rigbts protested by the civil rigbts taws we c'nfo°ce. A°y individual rltrgog such ba°assne,nt or intimiddion may file a conplaint witb tbe De,partmeŻt of Jt°stice. We would investigde sucba complaint if the sitt°Ņtion $,aEants' As! it Eay be necessary to release thŪs docž°ment and relatedconespondenceandrecordsuponrcqž°esl I°thewe°rtth°twe°eceivenrchare4uestye will sek to piotecf to the extuit provid$ by law, perso°al inforuratiou whicb" if °eleased, could Under tbe Freedom of lnformation co°stitr°tc a° unwananted invasion of privacy you have any questions regarding this letter, please'Pot"{ Ms. Luz lopez-OrtiA the 'COR attošey uoip.d to tUis (202) 61655?1. Questions about sther allegations nd ""se,„tReÁa* for Doco°geots and lqformation" should be zubmissions i° te"fonse to.the 'Tirst Ņio"śŅiu the Special l,iýeŗŁon SÁcfĢn, ś dścdbed in theŅrncbed cover leŁer' We i'ery much appreciate yor°r cooperation i°tbis investigatioo 'If ( Sincerely, nn -'r-"* C* . &°'Ņ'-Ņ-tl-l--t^Ý-"" MemÕly A. Friedlander Cbief Coo°din°tion and Review Section Civil Rigbts Division 'Enclosrue E,XHIBIT 7 -Arsro°wBmu-uB Thc Atla°Łc Burld°nt 950 F Strccl, Nw Washrnglon, DC 2dXH- 1404 2V2-75Á3300 Feņ,2V2-75«3331 www alston com Robcrt N. Driscoll D°recl Di°l: „12.7563470 řn°ll: bob.driscoll@kton.com August 13,2010 VU EMAIL (dsmith@)nÝil.maricopa gov) David R. Smith County Manager Maricopa County County Manager's Offrce 301 West Jefferson Street loķ Place Phoenix, A2-85003-2143 Re: DOJ Title VI Investigation Dear Mr. Smith I write on behalf of SheriffArpaio in response to your letter of August 12,2010. As an in°tial matter, as you are a\°rare, the Sheriff is a constitutional oflicer elected by the people of Maricopa County. He does not report to you, or to the Boa°d of Supervisors ("Board"). This pornt rs palicularly appropriate in relation to the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") mvestigation, an investigation with respect to which the Boa°d has already been deemed to have a conflrct-havrng requested the investigation and the involvement of the DOJ The Sheriff will respond to the investigation and defend and protect the reputation of the Maricopa County Sheriff s Office ("MCSO") and its Deputies as he sees fit, and he will not be intimidated by the Board's repeated threats and attempts to deny him access to counsel (while repeatedly authorizing pnvate counsel for itself) or to otherwise undermine enforcement of the all of the laws-including immigration laws. If the Boa°d does not like the current state of the law of A°izona or of federal law, it is free to advocate to change it-rt is not free to direct the Sheriffnot to enforce the laws that a°e on the books or to undermine the MCSO by seekrng to control litigation for purposes of Iosing the case and sconng politrcal points. As to the substance of your letter, let me lnform you of facts of whlch you may be unaware, having been uninvolved in DOJ's investigation to date. First, the MCSO has never objected to an investigation under Trtle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. $$ 200d to 200d-7 ("Title VI"). Untrl recently, the only portion of the DOJ David R. SiŮith Page2 investigation identified as a Title VI investigation had been with respect to provision of services to individuals with limited English profrciency ("LEP") and with respect to allegations of an English-only policy in MSCO jail facilities. The MCSO has responded to DOJ's requests in that regard and stands ready to respond Ů°fher should more requests on LEP issues be forthcoming. Recently, DOJ took the position that its police practices investigation (brought under ar°other statute, 42 U,S.C. $ l414l) was also within the ambit of Title VI. Given that the Title VI investigation is directed only towards allegations of national origin discrimination, there are many police practices issues (for example, canine policy, overtime policies, and sea°ches and seizures) that do not implicate national origin discrimination and could not conceivably be covered by Title VI. MCSO is in the process of working with DOJ to clari$ what police practices issues DOJ thinks implicate the issue of national origin discrimination and what complaints it has received in this regard that it desires to rnvestigate under Title VL Thus, the disagleement with DOJ is simply over the appropriate scope of a police practices and national origin discrimination investigation under Title VI. Whether the issue ofscope is resolved through negotiations or in a court establishing the boundaries of the investigation under federal law, is well within the authority of the Sheriffs Office to address this issue with DOJ. Clearly, DOJ is not entitled to information unrelated to its Title VI investigation just because the Title VI investigation extsts; the Sheriffis simply requiring compliance with the law, not flouting it, as you suggest. If you or counsel for the Board would like to be briefed on this specialized area of tbe law (with which Mr. Irvine is apparently unfamiliar given his letter to M°. Perez dated August 12,2010) or the status of the investigation, please feel free to contact me directly al the direct dial number listed above. Thomas K. Irvine EXHIBIT 8 AlstoNaBnPu-p The Athnbc Bufdlng 9s0FsH,NW Waahingtoa DC :zu.llun-.^."74–4 NŅ-7tu3ffi F„xZrř756.3f8 www.abtoncom RobertND°»coll D°°ectD„» „ř756.tl90 E °ralt bob.drbcol°@abbnoo°r May29,2009 TýLND DELIYERY Tbe Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr' Attorney General ofthe United Staśs United States DeparŁent of JusticŅ 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washingfon, DC 20530-0001 The Honorable Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland SecuritY U.S. Deparunent of Homeland Security Washington,DC20528 Re: Civil Rigbts Division/Departu°ent of Honetand Secuity Investigation of the Mari-copa County Sheriffs Office - Lnper:nissible Contact wittt Represented Pa°ties and Concerns of Imprope° Political lnfluence Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretary Napolitano: This firm, along with Brian D. Black and L. Eric Dowell of the firm of Olgehee Deakins, has recently been retained to represent the Maricopa Corxrty SherifPs OfŁce ("MCSO') in (l) the investigation oommenced on Msch 10, 2009 by tbe United States ý"p-mt"* of °u"ti"" (*DOi'or "DeparŁnent') Civil Rights Division's Special Liķgation Section pursuant to the pattem or practice provisions oftbe Violent Crime Contol a°°d Law EÔforcement Aci of lgg4,42 U.S.C. $ 14141 ("Section 14141') a°d the Omnibr°s Crime Contol and Safe SŁeets Act of L96E,42U.S.C' $ 3789d f'Safe Sueets Act'); (2) the investigation commenced by the Coordination and Review Section urder tne ploiri'Uitions against national origin discrimination in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of ig6q,42 U.S.C-. $$ 2000d to 2000d-7 ('Title VI") relating to services for lirnited English proficient Cfbpl individuals; and (3) in the audit review being conducted_by the Delarrnent of Homelar°d Secrnity ("DHS-) regarding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Eniorcement's ('ICE') 257(g)p°ogram, WUile the fach°al basis for these investigations is tutclear, it appears that the-—estigations focus on tbe MCSO's enforcemeut of immigration l„ws pursuant to its agreement with DHS rurder the ICE 287(9) program. Al°Ś°rř. Cha°lotte' D°Itaso °.°sA°gels. N wYorŐ. R se‚°ķTn°°°eo SliconVallet. VentrmOounty' WashI°ton'DC The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr. The Honorable Janet Napolitano tvlay29,2009 Page2 I write to make you aware of what aPPears t'o be a serious violation of ethical standards of conduct requiteŅ of DOJ attomeys and to seek assr°rances thatpolitical rivalries and score-settling play no role in these investigations. CONTACT WITH REPRESENTED PARőIES AND IJNDISCLOSED II!TON*T°,TION SHARING Although no lawsuit is pending, relevant ethical standards apply during a DOJ investigation . See28 C.F.R. Part7/. Under the ethical standards applicable to lawyers (which-may include the sÝndśds of the DisŁict of Coh°mbia, Arizonq o° other states ŗepending on the bar admission of the attomeys involved in ttris mattet), contact by DOJ atlomeys-with represented parties, except through their counsel, is prohibiśd. The Maricopa Corurty Attomey's OfficŅ ("MCAO'or "C.ounsel") was made a\r/are of the investigation being conducted by the Civil Rigýts Division's Special Litigation Sestion by tetter dated March 10,2009,to which Co°nsel respondedon Ma°ch l3,r11g,and, sinccthat time, Counsel has engaged in negotiatŪons regarding discovery and possibte wimess interr°iews requesķed by DOJ. Thus, there is no question thstŅt lea-st as oiMa°ch 13, 2009, the De,parUnent \^'as av/a°e that the MCSO was represented by Cousel, More recently, ś pd of the investigation" attomeys Żom DoJ Civit Rights Division and Counsel held a meeting on Aprit 30,2009 in Maricopa Corurty to discuss the investigation and DOJ's attendant discovery requests. On the morning of April27, 200g, counsel had a telesonfe°ence with the DoJ civit Rights DivŪsion attorneys to discuss disclosure of documents, výerein Cor°nsel reminded DOJ of MCSO's concerted efforś to closely track all docr°me,nts disclosed as part of the DOJ investigation. On that same °no°ning of April 27,2009,DHS arrived at MSCO to begin an inspection of MCSO's 287(g) prograŻi. Having been tbrough several ICE audits previousl° MCSO deputy chiefs aiÔorded DHS agents ICE's crutomary Żee access to the docrmrents and emplůyees of MCSO. orr April 27 andzL,z}Og,Dllfi agents met with numerous MCSO employees, and reviewed and obtained MCSO docr°ments. On April 28,2009,DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys notified Counsel that DHS agents were being invited to tl°e DOJ's meeting on April 30,2009, Upon Counsel's inquĢ, the Department assured Counsel that DHS had no role in the DOJ investigation. Howwer, conEary to DOJ's Ņrrisurances, Counsel subsequently learned from DHS that two weeks earlier, DHS agents and DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys had met to fulty set forth their plans of action wŪth MCSO and to devise a document-sbaring arrangement, to potentŪally include the sharing of witness statements. Thus, those docr°ments and witness st°atements that DHS agents were collecting from MCSO during the DHS inspection were obtained with the express understanding that they would be provided to DOJ for use in the DOJ investigation and any fr°ture litigation E'ith MCSO. As a result, the Departneng through agents of DHS, knowingly contacted and interviewed represented parties without any legal authorization or cor°sent Żom Counsel. The Honorable Eric H. HolderJr. Tbe Honorable Janet Napolitano May 29,20W Page 3 This improper documNrt-sharing arrangement and deceptive scheme to obtain interviews of UCSb enployees without Cor°nsel present forpurposes of the DOJ investigatior° devised a°rd cŰordinated by DOJ attomeys, was confirmed by Mr. Ca°lton Mar°n űf Oe Office of Inspector General of DHS in an April 28,2009 conversation with Counsel. Mr. Mann sÝted that two weeks prior to the April 30,2009 meeting in Maricopa County, he and five DOJ attorneys (including some or all of those attending the April 3”, 2009 meeting) tasked with handling the investigation of the MCSO met to set forth a plao of action whereby DHS woutd collect docr°ments and witress statements as part of their routine audit and sha°e those documents and possiblytb-e yites° statements r°r'itb DOJ with the understanding thŚt DOJ would do the sa°ne with information gathcred in its investigśion. Tbis undersianding was reached despite the fact that botŐt investigatioos were to be completely independe,l°t of eacb otber and despiś DO{s rcpeated assurances tl°at DHS "[did] not have a role in [DOJ'sJ investigationi'-.SÝÝ Aitachment I @-mail from Je Yon Jung, Senior Trial Atýorney, DOJ Civil Rights Division, to ClarissE McCormick, Deputy County Attorne° MCSO (April 28,2009 12:53 pm MS–). According to Ővfr. Maru°, the DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys were well awa°e thatDHS would be in Pboenix onApril 27,2009'to sta°t its MCSO inspection. YeL at no time dÕd DOJ bring tbe DHS ir°fo°rration sha°ing arrangement to the attention of Counsel. The matter was only addressed afrer Counsel oonfronted tho DOJ attomeys witb this information duing tbe April 30, 2009 meeting. The rules for contacting represented part°es are clearly delineated in the Dishiot Columbia, the Staś of Arizona and federal guidance for DOJ attorneys. Under the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct of a lawyer shall not communicate or cau°°e another to commr°nicate about the subject of tbe rcpresentation with a Prson known 1o be represenśd by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has prior consent of the lawyer representing such other PeŖon or is authorized to do so by law or courtorder.. . . Rule 4.2(a). Likewise, Rule 4.2(a) of the Arizona Rules of hofessional Conduct states that "a lawyer shall not cornmunicate about the subject of the represenlation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, r°nless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so." Rule 4.2 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct has virtually identical language. Moreover, the Ethical Standards for Attorneys for the Govemment make it clear that where an attorney does not have the authority or right to engage in an activity the Government can not delegate or direct an agent to do so either. See 28 C'F.R g 77 ,4(–. Furtber evidence of the Deparunent's coordination with DHS is DHS's most recent document request. ,See Attachment 2 @-mail from Justin Brown, Office of Inspections, Office of the Inspector General, DHS to Clarisse McCormick, Deputy County Attomey, MCSO (May 15, 2009 6:45 am MST)). This request goes beyond the matters specifically addressed in, and that are relevant to, the Memorandum of The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr. The Honorable Janet NaPolitano May29,2009 Page 4 and ICE and telating to the Agreement (.,MOA") entered into betrreenthe MCSO 2 slrows, after coordinating with DOJ' Section 287(g)pr"g;:- Ltj.td,as Attachment prydates theimplementation of the 287(e) –HS re4uested iorot*"ii* to* Co*t"l that discr°ssed i° the MOA' The requests Itog°r-'r"Ņ aŅŅ*sses top°ts y°llle°ona. those t.,u"9 n t1ctionallf merged as it is pH3 a°d DOJ iŪvestigations make clear that tno" information and for what impossible to discernlhich ug.ory is requ√ting wbat particular purpose. F on the DOJ rurder Sestion This scheme apPears dśigned to evade the li°nitations requires a l4!4l (wbich Ņoo o* ptovide srÓbpoena pouter and therefore effectively issues related investŪgate cooperative approacfri ina the limitations-on DHS, whichmay MoA. Based upon areviey of the facts and to the 2s7(g)ug.r.„oi*„"ithe powett are being abrsed as an improper documents, it appearstnut ůgS" investigative cornmunicaśd to discovery tool for tue po°- ct"* thatt—s anangement-u/a:leYer ollOJ rying DH! andfCE to. eiut" the implicaiŪons Counsel r°ntil aftÁr th.-f"cq setrior members of tbe MCSO without Corursel collect documents not in a federal lawzuit against ýe MCSO, Counsel will nresent for nossible ntt*" assutances a°e requests from DOJ or DHS until appropriate -oo° r°se of are uot rendered irrelevont by DOJ's surreptitiots made that negotiations witrr reachedICE and uHs to contavene any agreenents tllbt are -Š *;;;;rŮ;;ifrom *r ŪŲ.°Ņ; Ūii„o",-"", DOJ Office of By copy of this letter I am making a formal fequest that the possible professional n"rpo*iUifity ("OPR') investiga°e botb ihis issue..an6 the issue of outcome of any belo; Ů;p"t p.lidŠ futfķ;ů A*ut*"Ņthat each However, regardless ofthe appropriate of you rgfer-this-letter to the OpR review of DoJ,s conduc{ I ask to DOJ's apparent person(– who canprwide assuranoes thatanyt:n4dt_t:t.r4 produced, including: ;;-;p"-"Tķ"" lvith IcE and DHS will b presaved and o o o o ° . e-mails; notesf Outlook calendar and hard copy calendar entries; cell phone records; text messages; and of the coordination any other documentation related to the internal discussion would reflect participants in such meetings and the DHS that between about the respective substance of a"y„geements and any comnwrications Doi;° investigations. not improperly obtained Preservation of such evidence is criticat to establisb r°°hat is or is evidence as this matter moves fonvard. The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr' Tbe Honorable Janet NaPoliano May29,2009 Page 5 In addition, given that the MCSO bas not been provided $'itŐt copies of the documents obtained Ģ DHS, or notes or transcripts of the interviews of represented witnesses, I request that these be provided at this tÕme. Finally, I ask that both the DOJ and the DHS name an appropriate senior-level attome° \ryith the necessary authority, to coordinate with the MCSO and its counsel to explainthe terms and level of inte°sestion and cooperation of the multiple iuvestigations so that MCSO can make an appropriaŻe decision on whetber to haudle the parallel investigations separately, in a coordinated fashion, or to cooperate at all with the DOJ and DHS under the circr°mstances. POLITICAL II\TFLTIENCE The context in which thesc issues arise raises addŪtional eoncents as well. More speciŮcally, in the first two months of the new Adminis°ation, the MCSO has become the subject of th°ee ostensibly independent federal investigations: (l) the Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section's investigation into alleged patterns and practices of Constitutional or legal violations; (2) the Coordination and Review Section's investigation into altegations of discrimination against LEP indiv

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?