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)

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
JOÑES. SKËLTOÑ & HOCHIJLI, P.L.C. 2901 Nôrth Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: [phone] Fax:- 1602) 200-7801 wioneÈrØ.iéhfirm.com i niasteróh @i s hfrm. com j p opol ízi o @.¡in nrm. com
Joseoh J. Popolizio. Bar #017434

4
5

6 7

I
9

Attomeys for Defendantq Maricopa County Sheriffi Office and Joseph M. Aþaio

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' A4íaio, in hís 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 sworî,
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 attachçd 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 Requçst 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 çommunication 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 documçnts 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 racç, 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. ¡

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(Ð 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 unfçttered acçess 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-P¡D(-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 bçfore me this
N. Driscoll, Esq.

lilUut ofrþ&--_,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 : [phone] Fax: [phone] wioneslD.ishfirm.com i niasterldnØ. 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 yeaÍs, 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 appearaîce (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 4ü 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 corrìmence 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 posþonement 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 : [phone] Fax: [phone]

4
5

wionesfEishfirm.com
i

6 7

j

råasterloh Ø.i s hfirm. c o m popolizio @¡innrm. 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 .ÃIcaIa, 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

Lã' Er^/P(\ a((Ab Atrì8ù
Lt. Ernest Alcala
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before
Ernest Alcala.

6
7

methisll

duv

oflttøþrÁ2010

by Lt.

I
9 10
11 T2 13

Notary Pubþrc

Jfr*/U,

My Commission Expires:

lut

ry,Åo,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, Arízona 85012 Telephone [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] masters on(aD,¡ shÏrm. 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 Offïce 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 facilþ

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?arøfuâ2010

by Sgt.

My Commission Expires:

6 7

6'r

ici,,'' ''
OFFICIAT SEAt
NoTARY PUBLI0 - Stâtå ôf Âriuona MABICOPÀ COUNTY 0omrn, E¡Þlrus 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