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. 5 EXHIBIT T9 Dockets.Justia.com 1 L ., 3 William R. Jones, Jr,, Bar #001481 John T. Masterson, Bar#007447 JOĐES. SK╦LTOĐ & HOCHIJLI, P.L.C. 2901 N˘rth Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 263-1700 Fax:- 1602) 200-7801 wione╚rě.iÚhfirm.com i niasterˇh @i s hfrm. com j p opol Ýzi o @.íin nrm. com Joseoh J. Popolizio. Bar #017434 4 5 6 7 I 9 Attomeys for Defendantq Maricopa County Sheriffi Office and Joseph M. A■aio IINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, NO. CVI 0-0 I 878-PHX-GMS l0 l1 t2 l3 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. Maricooa Counw, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff s Office; and Joseph M' A4Ýaio, in hÝs official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT N. DRTSCOLL, ESQ. t7 18 19 Washingfon, D.C. District of Robert follows: l" N. Driscoll, Esq., being first duly sworţ, deposes and states as 20 2l LL na 23 I. Washingfon, D.C. I am a licensed attomey with the law firm of Alston & Bird, LLP in I am a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights 24 25 Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ') and former counsel for the Maricopa County Sheriff s Office and Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio ('Maricopa County') with regard to the investigations giving rise to this action, 26 27 z8 2388025.1 I 2 3 Z. As a result of my representation of MCSO and SheriffArpaio in this matter, and matter, I am familiar with the subject of the DOJ investigations relevant to this 4 5 participated in and conducted negotiations and communicated with the DOJ relative to In investigations, including those referenced in this Affrdavit and attached exhibits, these 6 7 of the addition, I am the author of the letters attachšd to the Statement of Facts in Support to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibits 6-10 and 16. Response Accordingly, I am oompetent and authorizedto makc this affidavit' I 9 10 3. Before the MCSO submitted its Limited English Proficiency ('LEP') position paper prusuant to the First Requšst for Documents and Information, DOJ's and Review ('COR'), Special Litigation Section ('SpL'), DOJ's officc of Coordination pertaining to and oounsel for Defendant Arpaio and MCSO, had numerous conversations deadlines for Title il T2 VI investigation related responses' t3 4. Every šommunication I had with DOJ until August 3,2010 regarding t4 l5 16 any its Title VI investigation addressed only the LEP investigation; at no point during of the LEP conversation did COR suggest that they sought information outside investigation. 5. t7 r8 T9 E. Perez sent a Not until August 3, 2010, when Assistant Attorney General Thomas letter to me regarding the Title VI portion of the investigation, did DOJ first suggest to me that police practices were a gomponcnt of the Title VI investigation' 20 21 6. 7. Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO have provided, and DOJ has otherwise received, information and acoess relevant to its Title M investigation' volurninous 22 23 Sheriff Arpaio and MCSO have also provided regarding the documentation responsive ts DOJ's First Request, despite a disagreement 24 25 26 proper scope of the DOJ's investigation and the tactics that DOJ employed to obtain information and documšnts with the use of another federal agency, the Department of Homeland SecuritY ('DHS'). 27 28 2384834.1 2t88025.1 I 2 3 8. The March 25,2009letter that I received from Menily Friedlander is attached as Ex. 2 to the Statement of Facts in Support of the Response to the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. 4 5 g. I, on behalf of MCSO, expressed concem to DOJ that the scope of its 6 7 Title VI investigation, as outlined in DOJ's August 3,2010letter, wcnt well beyond the LEP program within the Maricopa County Jail System and instead purported to encompass law enforcement police functions having nothing to do with discrimination' I 9 10 I objected to the scope of DOJ's request for information as unreasonable and beyond the scope of information to which the On behalf of MCSO, govemment was legally entitled under Title I 10. VI' ll t2 l3 14 l. Title VI is a funding statute that prohibits intentional racš, color, and national origin discrimination. Until the summer of 2010, it was my understanding that DOJ's Title VI investigation had focused solely on the alleged national original discrimination in the Maricopa County Jails. l5 t6 t7 18 12. subject jwisdiction. 13 In August 2010, DOJ informed me that the matters that were the of the Section l4l4l investigation purportedly were subject to Title VI , On behalf of MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio, investigation into MCSO's police practices. I disagreed with this 19 proposition and questioned DOJ's fusing of its Title VI national origin jail investigation 20 with its Section l4l4l 2t 22 ┐5 14. jails. Prior to August 2010, my understanding was that DOJ's Title VI investigation was directed only toward the alleged national origin discrimination in the 24 25 15. As reflected in correspondence between myself and DOJ, a genuine disagreement existed and was identified before the filing of this action and the instant 26 .rn Motion regarding the unreasonableness of the scope of police praotices and national origin investigations under Title VL 2384834.1 2388025. í 28 I 16. 17, On behalf of the Sheriff and MCSO, I attempted to resolve this ) 3 disagreement cooperatively ttuough negotiations. 4 5 In an August 24, 2010 meeting between DOJ and MCSO counsel, DOJ would not acknowledge that any issue was beyond the seope of the Title vI dress investigation (including issues of use of force, discipline of deputies, uniform and 6 7 8 policies). lg. DeJ contended that every document typically requested in a police practices investigation may also be relevant to a Titlc VI investigation. In particular, DOJ I 10 claimed that documents related to issues having nothing to do with national origin discrimination (e.g. use of force,.searoh and seizure), were properly within Title VI jurisdiction. l1 t2 13 19. MCSO became the subject of three independent investigations in a matter of weeks after the change in Administration in Washington, D'C': 1) SPL's t4 l5 T6 2) investigation into alleged pattern and practices of Constitutional or legal violations; COR's investigation into allegations of discrimination against LEP individuals, and; 3) DHS's investigation into MCSO's 287(đ program' t7 20. Sheriff Arpaio and I were both critical of the ethical questionability l8 19 of DOJ's investigation of MCSO, including what appeared to be the political nature of the investigation, DOJ's inappropriate insistence on unfšttered acšess to MCSO, and the unreasohable scope of the investigation' 20 2l 22 23 Zl. ZZ. MCSO has provided DOJ with documentation that is responsive to the DOJ's First Request before of the United States filed this action and Motion. MCSO has designated documents disclosed in Melendres v. Arpaio, 24 25 et al, No. Cy-07-2513-PíD(-GMS, (approximately 12,850 pages) as responsive to DOJ's First Request, as requested in the August 25,2010letter, It did so on August 27 ,z0rc. 26 27 28 23. It is my belief that these designated documents go beyond DOJ's requests associated with LEP and into the realm of police function, despite the dispute VI investigation. between the parties regarding the proper scope of the Title 2384834.1 2388025. r I 2 FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. J 4 5 6 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN bšfore me this N. Driscoll, Esq. lilUut ofr■&--_,2010bv Robert 7 I I 10 My Commission ExPires: t1 12 l3 T4 l5 t6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2384834,1 2388025.1 EXHIBIT 20 I 2 3 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 John T. Masterson,Bar #007447 Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone : (602) 263-17 00 Fax: (602) 200-7801 wioneslD.ishfirm.com i niasterldně. i sh firm. c om j p op o I i zio @;innrm. c om 4 5 6 7 I 9 10 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and Joseph M. Aipaio UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, NO. CVIO-O 1 878-PHX-GMS 1l t2 13 Plaintiff V. AFFTDAVIT OF CHIEF GERARI) SHERIDAN T4 15 T6 T7 18 Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff s Off,rce;and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Atizona, Defendants. STATE OF County of ARIZONA ) ) ) ss. t9 20 Maricopa 1. 2t 22 23 Gerard Sheridan, being flrst duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: I am over the age of 18 yea═s, am competent to testiff to the matters set forth in this Affidavit, and make this Aff,rdavit from my own personal knowledge. 24 25 26 27 28 2384869.1 2. I am the Interim Chief Deputy for the Maricopa County Sheriffls Office ("MCSO"). I have overseen the administration and operation of the Maricopa County jails for more than 10 years. 3. I am famitiar with the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriffls Office, the cooperation and position of the 1 MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio with regard to these investigations, and am authorized and have the personal knowledge necessary to make this affidavit. 2 3 4. 5. MCSO. Defendants have provided and the United States has otherwise 4 5 received information and access relevant to its investigation. Defendants have allowed and/or offered access to MCSO staff, as 6 well as the MCSO jail facilities set out in the United States August 25,2010 letter to 7 8 6. Defendants have also provided voluminous documentation in 9 10 11 response to the United States First Request for Documents and Information, despite a disagreement regarding the proper scope of the United States' investigation and the surreptitious tactics the United States employed to obtain information and documents with the use of another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). t2 13 T4 15 7. Despite the unreasonableness and improprieties of the United States' investigation, Sheriff Arpaio has granted the United States access to MCSO staff and facilities as the United States requested in its August 25,2010 letter, despite the United States' contention. I6 t7 18 T9 8. Within twelve (12) days of their appearaţce (November 2, 2010), attorneys from the law firm of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli met with five U.S. Attorneys in Phoenix to discuss the United States' First Request and its investigation generally. 9. of MCSO, 20 2T On November 2,2010, fle U.S. Attorneys met with MCSO Chief 22 23 24 25 Jack Maclntyre and me, as well as defense counsel, \Milliam R. Jones, John T. Masterson and Joseph J. Popolizio atthe offices of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C. 10. 11. As a result of that meeting, Chiefs Maclntyre and I pledged that the United States would receive access to MCSO facilities, staff, and inmates as requested. 26 27 28 2384869.1 During the November 2,2010 meeting, I offered to commence the requested tours of the MCSO facilities that very afternoon. I 2 J 12. 13. Avenue Jail. The United States declined that offer and, instead, elected to return the following week to tour the MCSO facilities. One week later, on the morning of November 9,2010, a team of DOJ 4 5 Attorneys from V/ashington, D.C. met with MCSO command staff and counsel at 4th 6 7 14. 15. During that meeting, MCSO command staff, including Chief At the conclusion of that meeting, a the DOJ attorney team began a Maclntyre and I, once again pledged to cooperate with the DOJ's investigation. I 9 10 11 day-long tour of the Maricopa County Jails including 4Ř Avenue Jail, Central Intake, Estrella Jail, Towers Jail, Durango Jail, In-Tents, and Lower Buckeye Jail. 16. 'were scheduled As initially agreed, inmate and MCSO command staff interviews States, however, t2 t3 to commence on November 10, 2010. The United postponed their commencement. I4 15 17. Instead, the U.S. Attorneys elected to commence inmate interviews on November 16,2010 and to postpone command staff interviews indefinitely. t6 T7 18. As with the inmate interviews, regarding the DOJ interviews of MCSO staff which MCSO has pledged cooperation will occur in the near future. l8 t9 20 19. 20. The MCSO is patiently awaiting word from the DOJ regarding when it would like to corrýmence MCSO staff interviews. The MCSO/Sheriff Arpaio has accommodated every request by a 2t 22 23 DOJ interview team to alter the inmate interview schedule, also. 2I. In addition, MCSO staff accommodated the United States by accepting the United States requested inmate interview schedule, by providing it with 24 25 26 27 28 legal rooms to conduct ex parte interviews at each facility and by accommodating several teams consisting of Assistant United States Attorneys and interpreters to conduct interviews simultaneously. 22. All of this occurred in addition to the previously scheduled tours and visits of other organizations. 2384869.1 1 23. November The United States' requested inmate interview schedule was as 2 J a follows: November 16, 2010 (two teams--one full daylone just in the afternoon); l7 and 18, 2010 (two teams all day); November 19,2010 (one team all day); 4 5 November 22 and 23, 2010 (trvo teams all day); November 24,2010 (one team all day); November 30, Decemb er 2, and December 3,2010 (two teams all day). 6 7 24. Through December 3, 2010, the DOJ teams, pursuant to their requests, conducted approximately 54 hours of interviews of 86 inmates selected from I 9 10 inmate rosters at Estrella, Durango, Tents, and Lower Buckeye interviews may occur in the future. jails. And more 25. As the DOJ attorneys informed me, Chief Maclntyre and attorneys l1 t2 13 T4 15 Joseph J. Popolizio and John T. Masterson, the pos■onement of the command staff interviews was, in part, due to the voluminous MCSO documentation that the United States had received on November 5, 2010 via overnight delivery in response to the First Request and pursuant to the pledge of MCSO Chiefs at the aforementioned November 2, 2010 meeting. t6 t7 18 26. The documentation mentioned in paragraph 25 consisted of all of the MCSO policies (1101 pages) that the United States requested within the First Request, but is not even close to the total number of documents that the MCSO has provided to the DOJ pursuant to its requests. t9 20 2T 27. The documents that the MCSO produced go beyond DOJ's requests associated with LEP and into the realm of police function, despite the dispute between the 22 23 24 25 parties regarding the proper scope of the Title VI investigation. 28. The MCSO has provided other documentation in response to the DOJ's First Request and before the filing of this action and Motion. 29. In addition, the MCSO has designated documents disclosed in 26 27 28 Melendres v. Arpaio, et al, No. CV-07-2513-PI{X-GMS, (approximately 12,850 pages) as responsive to the DOJ's First Request, as requested in the August 25,2010letter. on August 27,2010. 2384869.1 It did so 1 30. Further, the MCSO has also provided 1l documents associated with 2 J grievance and visitation processes, as well as 808 pages LEP position paper. But the production does not stop there. of documents in support of its 4 5 31. First Request, also. On December 10, 2010, the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio sent via Federal Express a hard drive containing 93I gigabytes of documentation responsive to the 6 7 32. As the DOJ is also aware, MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have provided I 9 10 11 116 boxes of documents consisting of hundreds of thousands of pages in response to the First Request, which must be either placed in electronic format or perhaps made available to DOJ counsel for review. 33. 34. Moreover, the DOJ has presumably received documentation and t2 t3 interview information pursuant to its arrangement with the DHS. The MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have provided the access to facilities, t4 15 staff, documentation, information and inmates that the DOJ has requested. FURTFIER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. l6 t7 18 Chief Gerard Sheridan SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this Gerard Sheridan. /┐h, of bzc .,2010by Chief t9 20 2T Notary Public 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2384869.1 EXHIBIT 2T I 2 J William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 John T. Masterson,Bar #007447 Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone : (602) 263-17 00 Fax: (602) 200-7801 4 5 wionesfEishfirm.com i 6 7 j rňasterloh ě.i s hfirm. c o m popolizio @íinnrm. com I 9 10 11 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriff s Office and Joseph M. Arpaio UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, NO. CV 1 O-O 1 878-PHX-GMS t2 13 Plaintiff, V. AFFIDAVIT OF LT. ERNEST ALCALA l4 15 t6 Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriffls Off,rce; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his off,rcial capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. l7 18 t9 20 2T STATE OF ARIZONA ) ) County of Maricopa ) ss. Lieutenant Ernest .├IcaIa, being first duly sworn, deposes and states follows: as 22 23 1. 2. I am over the age of 18 years, am competent to testiff to the matters set forth in this Aff,rdavit, and make this Aff,rdavit from my own personal knowledge. 24 25 I am a Lieutenant with the Maricopa County Sheriffls Office I am currently assigned as the ("MCSO") and have been employed since April 1990. 26 Special Response Team Commander at Lower Buckeye Jail. 27 28 2384727.1 I 2 J 3. Through my employment with MCSO, I am familiar with and have personal knowledge of the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation, the cooperation of the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio regarding those investigations, and matters related to this action. 4 5 4. 5. MCSO has provided and the United States has otherwise received 6 7 information and access relevant to its investigation. MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have allowed and/or offered access to I 9 10 11 MCSO staff, as well as the MCSO jail facilities set out in the United States August 25, 2010 letter to MCSO. 6. documentation MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have also provided voluminous States First Request in response to the United for Documents and t2 13 Information, despite a disagreement regarding the proper scope of the United States' investigation and the surreptitious tactics the United States employed to obtain t4 15 16 information and documents with the use of another federal agerLcy, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). 7 . Despite the unreasonableness and improprieties of the United States' t7 18 investigation, Sheriff Arpaio has granted the United States access to MCSO staff and facilities as the United States requested in its August 25, 2010 letter, contrary to the United States' contention. t9 20 8. 9. 10. On the morning of November 9, 2010, ateam of DOJ Attorneys from 2t 22 23 Washington, D.C. met with MCSO command staff and counsel at 4th Avenue Jail. At the conclusion of that meeting, a DOJ attorney team began a day- long tour of the Maricopa County Jails. 24 25 Accompanied by Sergeant James Seibert and myself, as well as officers assigned to a given facility selected at random, the DOJ team toured Fourth Avenue (including Central Intake), Durango, Estrella, Towers, Lower Buckeye, and In Tents 26 27 28 jail facilities-i.e. all of the Maricopa County jail facilities that the United States requested to tour. 2384727.t 1 I l. Defense attorneys Joseph J. Popolizio and John T. Masterson also 2 J 4 5 a attended the tours. 12. request. MCSO personnel and counsel complied with the DOJ team's every 13. 14. jail During the jail tours, the DOJ team spoke directly to MCSO 6 7 8 detention officers, all of whom were allowed to speak freely with the U.S. Attorneys. As the tours occurred, MCSO detention officers answered the U.S. Attorney team's questions regarding the particular jails, including pods within the jails, programs, the provision of medical care, as well as inmate (including LEP inmate) 9 10 11 access to programs and medical care. 15. 16. Neither defense counsel nor present command staff curtailed the open t2 13 dialogue between the MCSO officers and the members of the DOJ team. In addition, during the facility tours, U.S. Attorney team members t4 l5 t6 t7 18 also spoke with Correctional Health Services (CHS) personnel, the medical professionals who provide medical care to inmates in the Maricopa County Jail system. 17. without hesitation. During the tours, members of the U.S. Attorney team requested medical and grievance forms available at each facility, also. Each request was granted t9 20 18. Furthermore, MCSO Sergeant James Seibert provided the U.S. Attorneys with MCSO duty rosters as requested and pledged to provide inmate rosters the 2t 22 23 next morning when the U.S. Attorneys were scheduled to commence inmate command staff interviews. and 19. Pursuant to the llnited States' request, inmate interviews were and 30, as well as December 2 24 25 26 27 28 scheduled to occur November 16, t7, 18, 19, 22, 23,24, and 3, 20101- these interviews have proceeded as requested, unless the teams of Assistant United States Attorneys and their interpreters altered their requested schedule. 2384727.1 I 2 J 20. interview. Each morning, the teams of interviewers received inmate rosters AS they requested. The interviewing teams chose the inmates whom they wished to 4 5 21. The MCSO/Sheriff Arpaio has accommodated every request by a DOJ interview team to alter the inmate interview schedule, also. 6 7 8 22. In addition, MCSO staff accommodated the United States by accepting the United States requested inmate interview schedule, by providing it with legal rooms to conduct ex parte interviews at each facility and by accommodating several 9 10 11 teams consisting of Assistant United States Attorneys and interpreters to conduct interviews simultaneously. 23. All of this occurred in addition to the previously scheduled tours and visits of other organizations. l2 t3 24. The United States' requested inmate interview schedule was as t4 15 follows: November 16, 2010 (two teams--one full daylone just in the afternoon); November 17 and 18,2010(twoteamsallday); lrIovember19,2010 (oneteamallday); November 22 and 23,2010 (two teams all day); November 24,2010 (one team all day); November 30, December 2, and December 3, 2010 (t'wo teams all day). t6 I7 18 25. Through December 3, 2010, the DOJ teams, pursuant to their I9 20 requests, conducted approximately 54 hours of interviews of 86 inmates selected from inmate rosters at Estrella, Durango, Towers, Tents, and Lower Buckeye jails. 2t 22 ZJ 26. 27 . And more interviews may occur in the future. The postponement of the command staff interviews was, in part, due to the voluminous MCSO documentation that the llnited States had received on 24 25 26 27 28 November 5,2010 via overnight delivery in response to the First Request and pursuant to the pledge of MCSO Chiefs at the aforementioned November 2,2010 meeting. 2384727.r 1 28. The documentation consisted of all of the MCSO policies (1101 2 J pages) that the United States requested within the First Request. FLIRTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. 4 5 LŃ' Er^/P(\ a((Ab Atrý8¨ Lt. Ernest Alcala SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before Ernest Alcala. 6 7 methisll duv ofltt°■r┴2010 by Lt. I 9 10 11 T2 13 Notary Pub■rc Jfr*/U, My Commission Expires: lut ry,┼o,t t4 15 I6 t7 18 I9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT 22 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 William R. Jones, Jr., Bar #001481 John T. Masterson,Bar #007447 Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, ArÝzona 85012 Telephone (602) 263-1700 Fax: (602) 200-7801 wjones@jshfirm.com masters on(aD,í sh¤rm. com jpopolizio@ shfirm.com 1 Attorneys for Defendants Maricopa County Sheriffls Office and Joseph M. Arpaio 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, NO. CVl O-O 1 878.PHX-GMS I2 13 Plaintiff, V. AFFIDAVIT OF SGT. JAMES SEIBERT T4 15 t6 I7 18 Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriffls Ofhce; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. STATE OF County of ARIZONA t9 20 Maricopa 1. ) ) ss. ) 2I 22 23 Sgt. James Seibert, being first duly sworn, deposes and states as follows: I am over the age of 18 years, am competent to testiff to the matters set forth in this Affidavit, and make this Affidavit from my own personal knowledge. 24 25 2. 3. I am a Sergeant with the Maricopa County Sheriffls Off´ce I am familiar with and have ("MCSO") and have been employed for approximately 24 years. Through my employment with MCSO, 26 27 28 2384758.1 personal knowledge of the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) investigation, the I 2 J cooperation of the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio regarding those investigations, and matters related to this action. 4. 5. MCSO has provided and the United States has otherwise received 4 5 information and access relevant to its investigation. MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have allowed and/or offered access to 6 7 8 MCSO staff, as well as the MCSO jail facilities set out in the United States August 25, 2010 letter to MCSO. 6. documentation MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio have also provided voluminous States First Request 9 in response to the United for Documents and l0 11 Information, despite a disagreement regarding the proper scope of the United States' investigation and the surreptitious tactics the United States employed to obtain information and documents with the use of another federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"). I2 l3 T4 15 7. Despite the unreasonableness and improprieties of the United States' investigation, Sheriff Arpaio has granted the United States access to MCSO staff and t6 T7 facilities as the United States requested in its August 25, 2010 letter, contrary to the United States' contention. 18 8. 9. 10. assigned On the morning of November 9,2010, ateam of DOJ Attorneys from t9 20 Washington, D.C. met with MCSO command staff and counsel at 4th Avenue Jail. At the conclusion of that meeting, a DOJ attorney team began a day- 2l 22 23 long tour of the Maricopa County Jails. Accompanied by Lt. Ernest Alcala and myself, as well as officers to a given facil■ selected at random, the DOJ team toured Fourth Avenue 24 25 (including Central Intake), Durango, Estrella, Towers, Lower Buckeye, and In Tents jail facilities-i.e. all of the Maricopa County jail facilities that the United States requested to tour. I 26 27 28 1. Defense attorneys Joseph J. Popolizio and John T. Masterson also attended the tours. 2384758.r 1 12. request. MCSO persormel and counsel complied with the DOJ team's every 2 a J 13. 14. During the jail tours, the DOJ team spoke directly to MCSO 4 5 detention off,rcers, all of whom were allowed to speak freely with the U.S. Attorneys. As the tours occurred, MCSO detention off,tcers answered the U.S. 6 7 8 Attorney team's questions regarding the particular jails, including pods within the jails, jail programs, the provision of medical access to programs and medical care. care, as well as inmate (including LEP inmate) 9 10 11 15. Neither defense counsel nor present command staff curtailed the open dialogue between the MCSO officers and the members of the DOJ team. 16. In addition, during the facility tours, U.S. Attorney team members also spoke with Correctional Health Services (CHS) personnel, the medical professionals t2 13 who provide medical care to inmates in the Maricopa County Jail system. I4 l5 t6 t7 18 T9 17. without hesitation. During the tours, members of the U.S. Attorney team requested medical and grievance forms available at each facility, also. Each request was granted 18. Furthermore, I provided the U.S. Attorneys with MCSO duty rosters as requested and pledged to provide inmate rosters the next morning when the U.S. Attorneys were scheduled to commence inmate and command staff interviews. 20 19. Pursuant to the United States' request, inmate interviews were 17 2l 22 23 scheduled to occur November 16, , 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 30, as well as December 2 and 3,2010; these interviews have proceeded as requested, unless the teams of Assistant IJnited States Attorneys and their interpreters altered their requested schedule. 24 25 26 27 20. interview. Each morning, the teams of interviewers received inmate rosters as they requested. The interviewing teams chose the inmates whom they wished to 2I. 2384758.1 MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio has accommodated every request by a 28 DOJ interview team to alter the inmate interview schedule, also. I 2 22. In addition, MCSO staff accommodated the United States by accepting the United States requested inmate interview schedule, by providing it with J 4 5 legal rooms to conduct ex parte interviews at each facility and by accommodating several teams consisting of Assistant United States Attorneys and interpreters to conduct interviews simultaneously. 6 7 8 23. All of this occurred in addition to the previously scheduled tours and visits of other organizations. 24. The United States' requested inmate interview schedule was as 9 10 11 follows: November 16, 2010 (two teams--one full daylone just in the afternoon); November 17 and 18, 2010 (two teams all day); November 19,2010 (one team all day); November 22 and 23, 2010 (two teams all day); November 24,2010 (one team all day); November 30, December 2, and December 3,2010 (two teams all day). t2 13 25. Through December 3, 2010, the DOJ teams, pursuant to their t4 15 requests, conducted approximately 54 hours of interviews of 86 inmates selected from inmate rosters at Estrella, Durango, Towers, Tents, and Lower Buckeye jails. 16 t7 18 T9 26. 27 . And more interviews may occur in the future. The postponement of the command staff interviews was, in part, due documentation that the United States had received on to the voluminous MCSO November 5,2010 via overnight delivery in response to the First Request and pursuant to the pledge of MCSO Chiefs at the aforementioned November 2,2010 meeting. 20 2l 22 23 28. The documentation consisted of all of the MCSO policies (1101 pages) that the United States requested within the First Request. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. 24 25 26 27 28 23847s8.1 I 2 J 4 5 a SUBSCzuBED AND SWORN before me this James Seibert. llduy ot?ar°fuÔ2010 by Sgt. My Commission Expires: 6 7 6'r ici,,'' '' OFFICIAT SEAt NoTARY PUBLI0 - StÔtň ˘f ┬riuona MABICOP└ COUNTY 0omrn, EíŮlrus dune 19r i011 I 9 10 11 STACY STOTTS t2 T3 t4 15 t6 T7 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2384758.1

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?