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

Filing 1

COMPLAINT, filed by United States of America (submitted by Winsome Gayle). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(REK)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Roy L. Austin, Jr. (IL Bar #6228785) Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) Winsome G. Gayle (NY Bar #3974193) Sergio Perez (CA Bar #274798) Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar #4141636) Edward G. Caspar (MA Bar #650566) U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (ph) 202-305-4164 / (fax) 202-514-6273, (email) winsome.gayle@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 11 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 12 13 United States of America, 14 15 No. _________________ Plaintiff, v. 16 17 18 COMPLAINT Maricopa County, Arizona; Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office; and Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Defendants. 19 20 21 22 INTRODUCTION 1. The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) and Sheriff Joseph M. 23 Arpaio (Arpaio) have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of 24 unlawful discriminatory police conduct directed at Latinos in Maricopa County and 25 jail practices that unlawfully discriminate against Latino prisoners with limited 26 English language skills. For example, Latinos in Maricopa County are frequently 27 stopped, detained, and arrested on the basis of race, color, or national origin, and 28 Latino prisoners with limited English language skills are denied important 1 constitutional protections. In addition, Defendants MCSO and Arpaio pursue a 2 pattern or practice of illegal retaliation against their perceived critics by subjecting 3 them to baseless criminal actions, unfounded civil lawsuits, or meritless 4 administrative actions. 5 2. As a result of the pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination, Latinos in 6 Maricopa County are systematically denied their constitutional rights; the relationship 7 between MCSO and key segments of the community is eroded, making it more 8 difficult for MCSO to fight crime; and the safety of prisoners and officers in the jails 9 is jeopardized. Constitutional policing is an essential element of effective law 10 enforcement. MCSO and Arpaio’s conduct is neither constitutional nor effective law 11 enforcement. 12 3. Defendant Maricopa County, which is responsible for funding and 13 oversight of MCSO, has failed to ensure that MCSO’s programs or activities comply 14 with the requirements of the Constitution and federal law. 15 4. The Defendants’ violations of the Constitution and laws of the United 16 States are the product of a culture of disregard in MCSO for Latinos that starts at the 17 top and pervades the organization. MCSO jail employees frequently refer to Latinos 18 as “wetbacks,” “Mexican bitches,” and “stupid Mexicans.” MCSO supervisors 19 involved in immigration enforcement have expressed anti-Latino bias, in one instance 20 widely distributing an email that included a photograph of a Chihuahua dog dressed in 21 swimming gear with the caption “A Rare Photo of a Mexican Navy Seal.” MCSO 22 and Arpaio’s words and actions set the tone and create a culture of bias that 23 contributes to unlawful actions. 24 5. MCSO promotes, and is indifferent to, the discriminatory conduct of its law 25 enforcement officers, as is demonstrated by inadequate policies, ineffective training, 26 virtually non-existent accountability measures, poor supervision, scant data collection 27 mechanisms, distorted enforcement prioritization, an ineffective complaint and 28 2 1 disciplinary system, and dramatic departures from standard law enforcement 2 practices. 3 6. This Complaint sets out three categories of unlawful conduct: (1) a pattern 4 or practice of discriminatory and otherwise unconstitutional law enforcement actions 5 against Latinos in Maricopa County; (2) discriminatory jail practices against Latino 6 prisoners with limited English language skills; and (3) a pattern or practice of 7 retaliatory actions against perceived critics of MCSO activities. 8 9 7. This action is brought to enforce the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; the Violent Crime 10 Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141; Title VI of the Civil 11 Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7; the Title VI implementing 12 regulations issued by the United States Department of Justice, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 13 42.112; and Title VI contractual assurances. 14 8. The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the 15 Defendants’ violations of the law and to ensure that MCSO implements sustainable 16 reforms establishing police and jail practices that are constitutional. Implementation 17 of constitutional policing practices will enhance public safety for people in Maricopa 18 County. 19 9. DEFENDANTS 20 21 The United States alleges the following: 10. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) is a law enforcement 22 agency in Maricopa County, Arizona. MCSO provides law enforcement throughout 23 the County and operates the county jail system. MCSO is a program or activity that 24 receives federal financial assistance from the United States Department of Justice 25 (DOJ), both directly and as a subrecipient of Maricopa County. 26 11. Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (Arpaio) is the Sheriff of Maricopa County 27 and is responsible for the operation of MCSO, both in its policing and jail operations. 28 Arpaio has signed contractual assurances that MCSO will comply with federal law. 3 1 12. Defendant Maricopa County (the County) is a political subdivision of the 2 State of Arizona. The County is responsible for funding MCSO. The County’s 3 programs and activities receive federal financial assistance, including from DOJ. As a 4 recipient of federal funds, the County is responsible for ensuring—and it has made 5 contractual assurances that it will ensure—that the programs or activities to which it 6 distributes those funds, including programs administered by MCSO, comply with 7 federal law. 8 9 10 BACKGROUND 13. Maricopa County, Arizona has close to four million residents and is the fourth largest county in the United States by population. 11 14. Maricopa County covers more than 9,200 square miles. 12 15. According to the 2010 census, Maricopa County is 59 percent White, non- 13 Hispanic, 30 percent Hispanic/Latino, 5 percent Black, 4 percent Asian, and 2 percent 14 Native American. The Hispanic population in Maricopa County grew by 15 approximately 47 percent during the period between the 2000 census and the 2010 16 census. 17 16. MCSO employs approximately 900 sworn deputies and 1,800 sworn 18 detention officers (both are referred to as “officers” in this Complaint). It also relies 19 on the services of approximately 3,000 volunteer posse members. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20 21 17. 22 and 1345. 23 18. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 The United States is authorized to initiate this action against Defendants 24 Maricopa County, MCSO, and Arpaio (collectively, “the Defendants”) under the 25 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and 26 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, and its 27 implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.101 to 42.112. 28 4 1 2 3 19. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 20. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 4 The Defendants are located in Arizona, and all events, actions, or omissions giving 5 rise to these claims occurred in Arizona. 6 7 FACTS I. 8 9 MCSO’s Police Practices Unlawfully Discriminate against Latinos in Violation of Their Constitutional and Statutory Rights 21. In or about 2006, Arpaio decided to turn MCSO into a “full-fledged anti- 10 illegal immigration agency.” Since that time, MCSO has made immigration 11 enforcement one of the highest priorities of its law enforcement efforts. 12 22. From at least 2006 and continuing through the present, MCSO officers have 13 unlawfully discriminated against Latinos and otherwise violated their constitutional 14 rights through a broad range of police practices, including the following: 15 a. Unconstitutional and unlawful targeting of Latinos, because of their race, 16 color, or national origin, for pretextual traffic stops during routine 17 enforcement activity, in connection with purported immigration and human 18 smuggling law enforcement activities, and during purported crime 19 suppression operations (suppression sweeps); 20 b. Unconstitutional and unlawful detention of Latino drivers and passengers, 21 because of their race, color, or national origin, to determine immigration 22 status, when there is no lawful basis for the detention; 23 c. Unconstitutional and unlawful searches and seizures of Latinos, because of 24 their race, color, or national origin, during raids of residences suspected of 25 housing undocumented persons; and 26 d. Unconstitutional and unlawful targeting of Latino workers and illegal 27 detention of Latinos, because of their race, color, or national origin, during 28 worksite raids. 5 1 23. These practices, and the Defendants’ discriminatory actions against Latino 2 limited English proficient (LEP) prisoners in MCSO jails (described below), 3 constitute a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives Latinos in Maricopa County 4 of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the United States 5 Constitution and federal laws. 6 24. The Defendants’ intent to discriminate against Latinos is demonstrated not 7 only by the disparate negative impact on Latinos of the discriminatory conduct 8 described above, but by other practices, policies, and statements of the Defendants, 9 including: a. MCSO’s departure from standard law enforcement practices that help to 10 prevent biased policing and ensure constitutional policing; and 11 b. Statements by MCSO leadership and staff denigrating and endorsing the 12 denigration of Latinos. 13 A. 14 Otherwise Unconstitutional Manner 15 16 17 18 19 20 MCSO Targets Latinos on the Roads in a Discriminatory and 25. MCSO officers unlawfully rely on race, color, or national origin in their enforcement of traffic laws. 26. Latino drivers are subjected to disparate treatment as compared to similarly situated non-Latino drivers. 27. This was evidenced by a 2011 study that assessed the incidence of traffic 21 violations by non-Latino and Latino drivers and compared those data to the rates at 22 which MCSO officers stopped non-Latino and Latino traffic violators. 23 28. For example, in the southwest portion of the County, the study found that 24 Latino drivers are almost four times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than 25 non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. 26 29. In the northwest portion of the County, the study found that Latino drivers 27 are over seven times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than non-Latino 28 drivers engaged in similar conduct. 6 1 30. Most strikingly, in the northeast portion of the County, the study found that 2 Latino drivers are nearly nine times more likely to be stopped by MCSO officers than 3 non-Latino drivers engaged in similar conduct. 4 31. This targeting of Latinos for traffic enforcement violates the Fourth 5 Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 6 Amendment. 7 8 9 i. 32. Unlawful Traffic Stops by the Human Smuggling Unit MCSO discriminates against Latinos through traffic stops made in connection with the immigration enforcement activities of its Human Smuggling Unit 10 (HSU). 11 33. HSU is a unit of approximately 15 officers and supervisors whose mission 12 is to “interdict human smuggling loads and drop houses, and conduct investigations 13 that result in the successful prosecution of all suspects under A.R.S. §13-2319.A.” 14 A.R.S. §13-2319.A is Arizona’s criminal human smuggling law. 15 34. In pursuing HSU’s mission of interdicting human smugglers, HSU 16 members unlawfully and routinely rely on race, color, or national origin in initiating 17 pretextual stops of vehicles on the roads and highways of Maricopa County. 18 35. HSU members exercise significant discretion in determining whom to stop. 19 36. Training of HSU members emphasizes highly subjective factors to 20 determine which cars to target for stops and whether to treat passengers in stopped 21 cars as potentially undocumented persons. 22 37. The factors described in MCSO deputy training, and relied upon by HSU 23 members, are not reasonably calculated to differentiate between undocumented 24 immigrants and U.S. citizens who are Latino, or Latinos who are otherwise lawfully 25 in the United States. For example, in determining which cars to stop and which 26 people to detain, MCSO officers routinely rely upon factors such as whether 27 passengers look “disheveled” or do not speak English. These criteria, as routinely 28 cited by HSU officers, are insufficient to provide reasonable suspicion that a vehicle 7 1 contains undocumented persons or to justify the detention of passengers for 2 questioning. 3 38. HSU does not collect relevant data or other information that would allow it 4 to assess the efficacy of its methods, or to evaluate whether any HSU officer is 5 engaged in unconstitutional conduct. 6 7 8 9 39. Officers are given little meaningful training on procedures to avoid racial profiling and MCSO has no meaningful accountability mechanisms in place. 40. HSU operates without meaningful policy guidance, despite the high risk of racial profiling from immigration-targeted law enforcement activities. The MCSO 10 Handbook provided to HSU officers contains no guidance on the enforcement of 11 immigration laws or the determination of probable cause for immigration violations in 12 a manner that avoids discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. 13 14 15 41. As a result, vehicles occupied by Latinos are far more likely to be stopped by HSU officers, as compared to non-Latino drivers and passengers. 42. HSU officers report low “hit” rates from pretextual stops. The vast 16 majority of people stopped by HSU officers are either United States citizens or are 17 otherwise lawfully present in the United States. 18 19 20 43. HSU targets not only drivers, but passengers, in an attempt to apprehend both smugglers and the persons who are being smuggled. 44. HSU officers often unlawfully justify stops of Latino drivers on grounds 21 that are false, contradict their own records, or do not rise to the level of a traffic law 22 violation. 23 45. In one instance, HSU officers stopped and detained a Latino driver and 24 Latino passengers for a human smuggling investigation because they “appeared to be 25 laying or leaning on top of each other” and “appeared, disheveled, dirty, or stained 26 clothing [sic].” However, MCSO pictures taken at the scene show neatly dressed 27 passengers sitting comfortably in the rear of the vehicle. 28 8 1 46. In another instance, MCSO officers stopped a car carrying four Latino men, 2 although the car was not violating any traffic laws. The MCSO officers ordered the 3 men out of the car, zip-tied them, and made them sit on the curb for an hour before 4 releasing all of them. The only reason given for the stop was that the men’s car “was 5 a little low,” which is not a criminal or traffic violation. 6 7 8 47. In addition to engaging in discrimination in the determination of whom to stop, HSU officers illegally detain Latino passengers to determine immigration status. 48. Once HSU officers stop a car, and a driver or passenger appears to be 9 Latino, officers will typically question the passenger regarding immigration status and 10 ask for identification. If the passenger cannot produce identification or does not speak 11 English to the officer, the HSU officer routinely will detain the passenger to 12 determine whether the passenger is lawfully in the United States. 13 49. Reports by MCSO officers reveal the routine absence of probable cause to 14 arrest passengers. For example, the following factors, in some combination, were 15 listed as the support for probable cause in more than 50 arrest reports: passengers 16 appeared nervous or avoided eye contact; passengers had strong smell of body odor; 17 and passengers had no luggage or personal belongings in the car. ii. Unlawful Traffic Stops During Suppression Sweeps 18 19 20 21 50. MCSO unlawfully discriminates against Latinos in traffic stops conducted during “crime suppression operations,” commonly known as suppression sweeps. 51. MCSO has adopted the practice of suppression sweeps—large-scale, 22 resource-intensive operations involving dozens of officers and volunteer posse 23 members—as part of its efforts to enforce immigration laws. 24 52. Suppression sweeps are a practice of using a high volume of pretextual 25 traffic stops over a designated period in selected geographic areas in an effort to 26 identify undocumented persons. 27 28 53. MCSO officers exercise significant discretion in determining whom to stop during suppression sweeps. 9 1 54. During these operations, MCSO officers target Latinos, as opposed to non- 2 Latinos, for traffic stops based on their race, color, or national origin. These sweeps 3 result in the systematic violation of the constitutional rights of Latinos. 4 55. The suppression sweeps are not based on reliable intelligence or allegations 5 of criminal activity, lack sufficient operational planning, are not subject to meaningful 6 oversight, and are conducted by MCSO officers, along with volunteer posse members, 7 who are given insufficient training or guidance as to the execution of suppression 8 sweeps. 9 56. MCSO does not collect relevant data or other information that would allow 10 it to assess the efficacy of these suppression sweeps, or to evaluate whether any 11 officer misconduct occurs during such operations. 12 13 14 15 16 57. Highly subjective criteria are used to determine who is subject to detention pursuant to a pretext traffic stop. 58. Locations also have been selected for sweeps because of complaints by non-Latino residents that there are Latinos in those areas. 59. A high percentage of people who are stopped have committed no criminal 17 offense. In one crime suppression sweep, out of 299 stops, only 41 persons were 18 taken into custody. In another, 451 vehicles were stopped and only 53 persons were 19 taken into custody. These rates are typical of all MCSO suppression sweeps. 20 60. MCSO suppression sweeps on County roads result in extensive and 21 unjustified seizures, often of dozens of law-abiding Latinos who happen to be in the 22 area in which the operation is taking place. iii. Mistreatment of Latinos In the Course of Traffic Enforcement 23 24 61. The unlawful targeting and stopping of Latinos by MCSO officers through 25 routine traffic enforcement activities and immigration-related operations has led to the 26 mistreatment of Latinos. 27 28 62. For example, an MCSO officer stopped a Latina woman – a citizen of the United States and five months pregnant at the time – as she pulled into her driveway. 10 1 After she exited her car, the officer then insisted that she sit on the hood of the car. 2 When she refused, the officer grabbed her arms, pulled them behind her back, and 3 slammed her, stomach first, into the vehicle three times. He then dragged her to the 4 patrol car and shoved her into the backseat. He left her in the patrol car for 5 approximately 30 minutes without air conditioning. The MCSO officer ultimately 6 issued a citation for failure to provide identification. This citation was later changed 7 to failure to provide proof of insurance. The citation was resolved when the woman 8 provided her proof of insurance to the local court. 9 63. In another instance, during a crime suppression operation, two MCSO 10 officers followed a Latina woman, a citizen of the United States, for a quarter of a 11 mile to her home. The officers did not turn on their emergency lights, but insisted that 12 the woman remain in her car when she attempted to exit the car and enter her home. 13 The officers’ stated reasons for approaching the woman was a non-functioning license 14 plate light. When the woman attempted to enter her home, the officers used force to 15 take her to the ground, kneed her in the back, and handcuffed her. The woman was 16 then taken to an MCSO substation, cited for “disorderly conduct,” and returned home. 17 The disorderly conduct citation was subsequently dismissed. B. 18 MCSO Targets Latinos in Their Homes and Workplaces for 19 Immigration Enforcement in a Discriminatory and Otherwise 20 Unconstitutional Manner 21 64. MCSO, through its specialized units and specialized operations, has 22 targeted Latinos in their homes and in their workplaces in a discriminatory and 23 otherwise unconstitutional manner. 24 65. At the same time, MCSO has knowingly failed to implement adequate 25 policies, training, or accountability mechanisms to prevent unlawful discrimination 26 against Latinos. 27 28 66. HSU officers have searched and seized Latinos without cause on the basis of race, color, or national origin in raids of residences. 11 1 67. For example, during a raid of a house suspected of containing human 2 smugglers and their victims, HSU officers went to an adjacent house, which was 3 occupied by a Latino family. The officers entered the adjacent house and searched it, 4 without a warrant and without the residents’ knowing consent. Although they found 5 no evidence of criminal activity, after the search was over, the officers zip-tied the 6 residents, a Latino man, a legal permanent resident of the United States, and his 12- 7 year-old Latino son, a citizen of the United States, and required them to sit on the 8 sidewalk for more than one hour, along with approximately 10 persons who had been 9 seized from the target house, before being released. 10 68. The Criminal Employment Squad (CES) is an immigration enforcement 11 unit of approximately 10 MCSO officers that relies primarily on state identity theft 12 laws to interdict undocumented immigrants. CES officers conduct raids at worksites 13 in an effort to arrest undocumented persons who are working without proper 14 authorization. These raids are conducted in a manner that results in the seizure of 15 Latinos without reasonable suspicion. 16 17 18 19 20 69. According to MCSO, CES has conducted 60 raids resulting in 627 arrests since 2006, with the most recent in May 2012. 70. Virtually all worksite raids have taken place at businesses where the majority of the employees are Latino. 71. CES officers typically conduct these raids pursuant to search warrants that 21 list specific persons at the worksite who are suspected of being in possession of 22 fraudulent identity documents. They do not ordinarily obtain arrest warrants. 23 72. During raids, CES typically seizes all Latinos present, whether they are 24 listed on the warrant or not. For example, in one raid CES had a search warrant for 67 25 people, yet 109 people were detained. Fifty-nine people were arrested and 50 held for 26 several hours before they were released. Those detained, but not on the warrant, were 27 seized because they were Latino and present at the time of the raid. No legal 28 justification existed for their detention. 12 1 73. In another raid, a U.S.-born Latina was taken into custody for four hours to 2 determine whether she was lawfully in the United States. In response to media 3 inquiries about this incident, Arpaio was quoted as saying: “That’s just normal police 4 work. You sometimes take people in for probable cause for questioning and they’re 5 released.” The only cause for her arrest was that she was Latina and on-site during a 6 raid, reasons insufficient to provide probable cause for the detention. 7 74. CES officers ordinarily use unjustified seizures to conduct interviews of all 8 seized persons to determine if they are legally in the country, despite lacking legal 9 justification to detain them. The determination of whether to seize and detain a 10 worker for questioning is impermissibly based on race, color, or national origin. 11 These seizures are not for the limited, legitimate purposes of protecting officers, 12 protecting evidence, or identifying persons listed on the warrant. 13 75. For example, during one worksite raid, CES officers demanded to see the 14 identification of a Latino man who was parked in a lot adjacent to the business 15 targeted in the worksite raid, indicating that CES officers questioned the man because 16 he appeared Latino and happened to be in the vicinity of the worksite raid. 17 76. The worksite raids are not subject to meaningful oversight, lack sufficient 18 operational planning, and are conducted by MCSO officers who are given insufficient 19 training or guidance as to the execution of worksite raids. 20 77. In addition, MCSO does not collect data or other information that would 21 allow it to assess the efficacy of these worksite raids or evaluate whether any officer 22 misconduct occurs during such operations. 23 78. MCSO’s treatment of Latino employees in CES worksite raids stands in 24 stark contrast to the treatment of their employers, who are often non-Latino. MCSO 25 officers do not charge or detain business owners whose worksites are raided. 26 27 28 13 1 C. MCSO Has Significantly Departed from Standard Law Enforcement 2 3 Practices that Protect against Discriminatory Policing 79. MCSO has failed to develop and implement policies and practices that 4 generally would be expected of law enforcement agencies, and specifically would be 5 expected of law enforcement agencies to protect against discriminatory policing. 6 There is no legitimate law enforcement purpose that explains these failures. These 7 failures are evidence that MCSO’s discrimination against Latinos is intentional. 8 i. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80. MCSO Fails to Adopt Basic Policy, Training and Oversight Practices in Connection with HSU and CES The nature of the specialized work performed by HSU and CES carries with it a high risk of discriminatory conduct. For example, HSU makes heavy use of pretextual traffic stops of Latinos to purportedly interdict human smugglers and their victims; a high number of stops made by HSU result in extended searches and seizures; and HSU’s success is judged by the number of immigration arrests it makes. 81. Under these circumstances, a law enforcement agency ordinarily would require that a unit engaged in activities with these risks receive more supervision and meaningful policy guidance. By contrast, HSU and CES officers operate under less oversight than other MCSO officers and receive limited written guidance. HSU and CES officers receive no formal training specific to their responsibilities, beyond that received by other MCSO officers. HSU is guided in its high-risk policing by a threepage document. 82. Arpaio and MCSO leadership promote and are indifferent to the heightened risk of discriminatory conduct that is created by MCSO’s lack of basic policy, training and oversight practices in connection with HSU and CES. The failure to provide such supervision and guidance is evidence of intent to discriminate against Latinos. 26 27 28 14 1 ii. MCSO and Arpaio’s Decision to Prioritize Immigration Enforcement over the 2 Investigation of Rape, Sexual Assault, and other Violent Crime Provides 3 Additional Evidence of Defendants’ Intent to Discriminate against Latinos 4 83. MCSO has focused its most intensive law enforcement efforts on low-level 5 immigration offenses over more serious crime from approximately 2006 to the 6 present. MCSO’s prioritization of immigration enforcement has resulted in a failure 7 to meet its other law enforcement responsibilities, and provides further evidence of 8 the Defendants’ intent to discriminate against Latinos. 9 84. Statistical reports show an increase in violent crime in Maricopa County, 10 and of homicides in particular, during the period of enhanced immigration 11 enforcement. 12 85. MCSO has failed, for example, to adequately respond to reports of sexual 13 violence, including allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse of girls, thus 14 exposing women and girls, who constitute the majority of victims of crimes of sexual 15 violence in Maricopa County, to a disproportionate risk of physical and psychological 16 harm. 17 86. Faced with such an increase in crime and the risk of harm presented by 18 unaddressed sexual assaults, a law enforcement agency ordinarily would be expected 19 to prioritize more serious offenses, such as crimes of sexual violence, over less 20 serious offenses, such as low-level immigration offenses. 21 iii. MCSO and Arpaio’s Ineffective Oversight, Accountability, Training, and Policies 22 Fail to Prevent Unlawful Targeting of Latinos and Provides Additional Evidence 23 of Their Intent to Discriminate Against Latinos 24 87. MCSO has inadequate policies and training, and systems of oversight and 25 accountability. These institutional failures persist despite MCSO’s awareness of the 26 risk of discriminatory policing created by MCSO’s program to enforce immigrations 27 laws. MCSO fails to adopt policies and practices to prevent and address 28 discriminatory policing. 15 1 88. MCSO fails to collect data that will permit the identification of 2 discriminatory practices. MCSO has no system in place for effectively tracking 3 deputy or unit conduct, traffic stops, citations, arrests, uses of force, or complaints. 4 These data are collected by many other law enforcement agencies as a means of 5 preventing discriminatory policing. 6 89. MCSO’s occasional reliance on its Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) 7 system to monitor officer conduct is inadequate since it does not fully track deputy 8 activity. The CAD system does not, for instance, track such information as race or 9 ethnicity, and MCSO officers have wide discretion regarding the use of and 10 11 12 13 information they input into CAD. 90. MCSO’s institutional failures further extend to grossly inadequate procedures for tracking deputy misconduct. 91. MCSO’s system for investigating complaints of deputy misconduct gives 14 substantial discretion to the supervisor of the deputy who is the subject of the 15 complaint. Supervisors, who may bear some responsibility for that misconduct, are 16 given discretion to close the investigation of the complaint without further notification 17 through the command structure, notification of Internal Affairs, or centralized record 18 keeping. 19 92. Neither Internal Affairs nor any other element of the MCSO command 20 structure tracks allegations of deputy misconduct. Consequently, MCSO command 21 staff members often are unaware of repeated complaints made about a deputy. 22 93. MCSO practices discourage individuals from filing complaints and fail to 23 collect data that would assist it in identifying and correcting incidents of biased 24 policing. 25 94. MCSO has virtually no policies or procedures designed to prevent 26 discriminatory policing by its officers. MCSO nominally forbids racial profiling, but 27 has no policy describing with any degree of specificity what racial profiling is or how 28 to prevent it. 16 1 95. MCSO is fully aware of the risk of discriminatory policing created by its 2 practices. Given that, the lack of adequate training and policies necessary to prevent 3 the discriminatory treatment and abuse of Latinos reveals a disregard for the rights of 4 the Latino community, and stands as further evidence of an intent to discriminate 5 against Latinos. 6 7 iv. MCSO Posses Receive Inadequate Training and Oversight 96. MCSO has recruited nearly 3,000 volunteer posse members since 1993. 8 MCSO makes use of volunteer posse members in various capacities, including in 9 operations by HSU and CES, and in suppression sweeps. 10 11 12 97. MCSO has used volunteer posse members in its immigration enforcement actions since 2008. In 2010, it created an “illegal immigration posse.” 98. Volunteer posse members do not receive the same level of training as 13 sworn MCSO officers. As acknowledged by MCSO policies, posse volunteers are not 14 qualified to participate in routine law enforcement activities. 15 99. Nonetheless, MCSO relies on volunteer posse members for immigration 16 enforcement operations. Volunteer posse members assist in the identification and 17 search of vehicles and suspected “drop houses;” the transport of individuals suspected 18 of immigration law violations; the execution of worksite raids by CES; and crowd 19 control during demonstrations against MCSO immigration policies. 20 100. MCSO provides insufficient supervision and oversight to ensure that 21 volunteer posse members taking part in immigration enforcement activities do so 22 without engaging in unlawful discrimination. 23 D. MCSO Leadership and Staff Demonstrate Intent to Discriminate 24 against Latinos through Their Public Statements and Endorsement of Anti- 25 Latino Statements 26 101. Arpaio and MCSO command staff have created and fostered institutional 27 bias against Latinos, which underlies and further encourages the unlawful treatment of 28 Latinos by MCSO. MCSO’s pervasive bias against Latinos is demonstrated by 17 1 MCSO command staff’s public expressions of hostility toward Latinos and the Latino 2 community—including public statements by MCSO command staff indicating bias 3 against Latinos, endorsement of and reliance on citizen correspondence evincing 4 animus against Latinos, and emails circulated among MCSO staff indicating bias 5 against Latinos. 6 102. Arpaio has made public statements that conflate all Latinos with 7 undocumented individuals and that demonstrate bias toward Latinos and their 8 presence in the United States. 9 103. Arpaio voiced his biased opinion of Latinos and Latino culture in a book 10 that he coauthored in 2008. In that book, Arpaio singles out Mexicans and Latinos as 11 different from all other immigrant groups in America. For example, Arpaio states that 12 Latinos maintain “language [,] customs [and] beliefs separate from the mainstream,” 13 and are trying to “reconquest” American soil through their migration to the United 14 States. 15 104. In a nationally televised interview in 2009, Arpaio stated: “They hate me, 16 the Hispanic community, because they’re afraid they’re going to be arrested. And 17 they’re all leaving town, so I think we’re doing something good, if they’re leaving.” 18 105. Such statements convey to MCSO personnel that discrimination and other 19 unlawful conduct against Latinos is acceptable and part of MCSO’s policies or 20 practices. 21 106. Arpaio has adopted practices that further convey to MCSO command staff 22 his endorsement of discrimination and other unlawful conduct toward Latinos. 23 Arpaio has circulated letters from constituents and the wider public that express 24 biased sentiments toward Latinos—but which contain no actionable information about 25 criminal activity or immigration-related offenses—to MCSO command staff, along 26 with his annotations on the letters giving instructions to staff to respond with thank- 27 you notes or to maintain copies for his files. 28 18 1 107. For example, Arpaio received a letter stating “[i]f you have dark skin, then 2 you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegals who are 3 here illegally. . . I’m begging you to come over . . . and round them all up.” Arpaio 4 labeled the letter as “intelligence,” forwarded it to his Deputy Chief of Enforcement 5 Operations and told the Deputy Chief to “[h]ave someone handle this.” 6 108. Arpaio received a letter endorsing “stopping Mexicans to make sure they 7 are legal” as a police practice, sent a letter of appreciation to its two authors, and kept 8 three copies of the original letter for himself. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 109. Arpaio instructed his senior staff to “look into” a complaint that workers were speaking Spanish in a McDonald’s restaurant. 110. Similarly, Arpaio maintains an “immigration file,” in which he keeps letters that advocate blatant bias against Latinos. 111. MCSO supervisory staff also expresses bias and endorses discrimination and other unlawful conduct against Latinos. 112. MCSO personnel, including MCSO supervisors, have circulated among 16 themselves, on County computers, e-mails mocking or stereotyping Mexicans or 17 Latinos. 18 113. For example, an e-mail circulated among MCSO personnel contained an 19 image of an imitation driver’s license with a caricature of a Mexican national 20 described as originating from “Mexifornia” and having a driver class of “illegal 21 alien.” 22 23 24 114. Still another e-mail sent by a sergeant in MCSO’s HSU suggested that Mexicans are prone to drunkenness. 115. MCSO personnel responsible for prisoners held in MCSO jails routinely 25 direct racial slurs toward Latino prisoners, including calling Latino prisoners “paisas,” 26 “wetbacks,” “Mexican bitches,” “fucking Mexicans,” and “stupid Mexicans.” 27 28 19 1 116. MCSO’s Chief of Enforcement acknowledged that the majority of 2 undocumented persons in Maricopa County are Latino and described undocumented 3 persons as “the lowest element in our society.” 4 II. MCSO’s Correctional Practices Violate the Constitutional and Statutory 5 6 Rights of Latino Limited English Proficient Prisoners 117. Latino Limited English Proficient (LEP) prisoners in MCSO jails routinely 7 suffer harm because of their inability to speak English. This harm is a direct result of 8 MCSO and Arpaio’s intentional failure, since at least 2009 and continuing to the 9 present, to provide necessary Spanish language-assistance services for Latino LEP 10 11 prisoners and to adequately supervise and train their detention officers. 118. MCSO and Arpaio failed to provide necessary Spanish language-assistance 12 even though they know that Latino prisoners comprise the vast majority of LEP 13 prisoners in MCSO jails. 14 15 16 119. MCSO is aware of what is necessary to provide meaningful LEP services in the correctional context. 120. In a June 14, 2010 Position Statement outlining its policies, MCSO noted 17 the importance of providing language assistance to Latino LEP prisoners, stating that 18 such assistance is “essential to the overall operation of the jails and the safety of the 19 prisoners and officers.” 20 121. MCSO is aware of the discriminatory treatment of Latino LEP prisoners in 21 its jails; yet, it allows the jails to continue to operate in a discriminatory manner and 22 fails to take basic, well-established measures to address and correct these matters. 23 122. MCSO does not have a written plan in place that addresses how it will 24 provide language assistance to prisoners (nor does it have a plan for addressing 25 language assistance in its police work). The absence of a plan is intentional: the June 26 14, 2010 Position Statement notes that “MCSO does not have a formal written 27 language assistance plan.” Although MCSO contends that this gives MCSO detention 28 officers flexibility to address inmate language requirements, the absence of a written 20 1 plan allows the ad hoc, inconsistent, and discriminatory treatment of Latino LEP 2 prisoners to occur. 3 123. MCSO’s failure to provide language assistance means that Latino LEP 4 prisoners are denied the services, programs, and activities that MCSO makes available 5 to non-LEP prisoners. 6 7 8 9 124. Latino LEP prisoners are penalized by MCSO detention officers for not submitting forms written in English. 125. MCSO detention officers routinely have refused to accept grievance forms or prisoner request orders (“tank orders”) written in Spanish. Grievance forms 10 provide the means for prisoners to report misconduct by a detention officer. Tank 11 orders provide the means for prisoners to request basic daily services, religious 12 materials, legal research, or information—such as court dates, and other important 13 information. 14 126. For example, female Latino LEP prisoners have been denied basic sanitary 15 items. In some instances, female Latino LEP prisoners have been forced to remain 16 with sheets or pants soiled from menstruation because of MCSO’s failure to ensure 17 that detention officers provide language assistance in such circumstances. 18 127. MCSO detention officers routinely issue commands only in English. 19 128. In some instances, when a Latino LEP prisoner has been unable to 20 understand commands given in English, MCSO detention officers have put an entire 21 area of the jail in lockdown—effectively preventing all the prisoners in that area from 22 accessing a number of privileges because of the Latino LEP prisoner’s inability to 23 understand English, inciting hostility toward the LEP prisoner, and potentially placing 24 MCSO officers and other prisoners in harm’s way. 25 129. In other instances, MCSO detention officers have put Latino LEP prisoners 26 in solitary confinement for extended periods of time because of their inability to 27 understand and thus follow a command given in English. 28 21 1 130. MCSO detention officers routinely make announcements only in English. 2 Some of these are basic announcements informing prisoners, among other things, 3 when it is time for them to go outdoors, receive clothing, or eat. 4 5 6 131. MCSO detention officers use MCSO’s institutional failure to provide language assistance to take advantage of Latino LEP prisoners. 132. For example, MCSO detention officers have pressured Latino LEP 7 prisoners to sign “voluntary return” forms without proper language assistance. Once 8 signed, these forms oblige foreign nationals to give up any right to have an 9 immigration hearing, challenge their removal from the United States, speak with an 10 attorney, or otherwise seek a determination permitting them to stay in the United 11 States. Latino LEP prisoners have been compelled by MCSO detention officers to 12 sign this form even when they have pending proceedings that may authorize their 13 continued stay in the United States. 14 133. MCSO detention officers have used Spanish-speaking prisoners to interpret 15 for them in non-exigent circumstances, but MCSO makes no determination whether 16 these prisoners have the language competency to interpret. 17 134. The use of inmate interpreters risks not only inaccuracy, but also may give 18 the inmate-interpreter access to personal or private information of the LEP inmate and 19 presents a security and safety risk in a detention setting. 20 21 22 135. Detention officers have received little training or guidance from command staff with regard to providing language assistance to Latino LEP prisoners. 136. MCSO does not have in place any meaningful system to record or use the 23 language proficiency of its detention officers. Although MCSO has noted that it 24 created a “Foreign Language Skills Roster,” which listed the names of detention 25 officers who self-identified as speaking languages other than English, MCSO has 26 neither assessed the ability of these detention officers to interpret or translate nor 27 provided them with training to provide language services. 28 22 1 2 3 137. is a substantial departure from generally accepted correctional standards. III. MCSO Has Retaliated against Perceived Critics of Its Practices in Violation 4 5 The absence of these critical components of a language assistance program of the First Amendment 138. Since at least 2006 and continuing to the present, in violation of the First 6 Amendment, MCSO and Arpaio have retaliated against critics of MCSO practices, 7 and particularly MCSO’s immigration practices, in an effort to punish these persons 8 for their criticism and to prevent future criticism. 9 10 11 139. As recounted below, the filing of unsubstantiated complaints and lawsuits demonstrates the pattern or practice of retaliation for protected speech activity. 140. The former Chief Deputy, acting on behalf of MCSO and Arpaio, filed five 12 separate complaints with the Arizona State Bar targeting attorneys who spoke out 13 publicly against MCSO and Arpaio. Each of these complaints was dismissed for lack 14 of facts or evidence sufficient to support even the initiation of an investigation. 15 141. The former Chief Deputy, acting on behalf of MCSO and Arpaio, filed four 16 complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct targeting judges who 17 had either made public statements critical of MCSO or had issued decisions that 18 Arpaio or MCSO command staff disliked. Each of these complaints was dismissed 19 for lack of facts or evidence to support opening an investigation. 20 142. Acting in concert with the former Chief Deputy, Arpaio, and MCSO, a 21 former Maricopa County Attorney filed a lawsuit accusing people who had publicly 22 criticized MCSO of conspiracy in a criminal enterprise. Arpaio participated as a 23 named plaintiff in the lawsuit and substantially contributed to its filing. This case was 24 soon abandoned as unjustified and the responsible attorneys, including former 25 Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and two of his assistant attorneys, were 26 subsequently charged by the Arizona State Bar for having violated the Arizona Rules 27 of Professional Conduct by bringing the lawsuit. 28 23 1 143. On April 10, 2012, former Maricopa County Attorney Thomas and his two 2 assistant attorneys were found guilty of the ethics charges. Thomas announced that he 3 was not appealing his disbarment. 4 144. MCSO and Arpaio also have used arrests as a means to intimidate and 5 retaliate against persons who have spoken out against their immigration practices. 6 The Opinion and Order in the Thomas ethics matter found, for example: “Sheriff 7 Arpaio, through Chief Deputy Hendershott, closing their eyes to his Constitutional 8 rights, ordered Mr. Stapley [an Arpaio critic] arrested. They never filed any 9 documents or charges but instead surreptitiously videotaped his arrest, and held him 10 in jail for hours. Testimony at the disbarment hearing revealed that no one ever filed 11 anything against Mr. Stapley regarding this event, but the press was called and 12 informed that Mr. Stapley had been arrested.” 13 145. The Thomas ethics Opinion and Order also described the treatment of 14 Arpaio critics by Arpaio, Thomas and others as “a concerted effort … to wrestle 15 power from [Maricopa County Board of Supervisors], County officials, and Superior 16 Court judges, and to instill fear in the hearts of those who would resist.” The Opinion 17 and Order concluded that this effort culminated in a “conspiracy” to indict a judge 18 without cause: “Thomas and [assistant county attorney] Aubuchon quietly met with 19 Arpaio and [former Chief Deputy] Hendershott behind closed doors. This shameful 20 gathering had but one motive. The foursome met to conspire about how to muzzle 21 their next most-feared nemesis. After much late-night intrigue by Thomas and 22 Aubuchon, the conclave’s results were revealed the following morning. On 23 December 9th, Thomas and Aubuchon filed criminal charges against Presiding 24 Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe without a shred of evidence that Donahoe had 25 committed any crime.” Judge Donahoe had done nothing more than issue a ruling 26 adverse to MCSO and was perceived to be a critic of Arpaio. 27 28 146. Retaliation was not reserved for officials and judges in Maricopa County, but also extended to individuals perceived as critical of Arpaio and MCSO. 24 1 147. MCSO arrested a peaceful protestor for obstructing a thoroughfare during 2 an act of civil disobedience. The protestor – who has a long history of publicly 3 criticizing MCSO immigration operations – was released. 4 148. The protestor then went to observe the continuing protests. Although this 5 critic of MCSO policies was observing the protest without participating, MCSO 6 unlawfully arrested him when Arpaio, who is very familiar with this protestor, 7 publicly suggested that he be arrested a second time. At the arraignment, the 8 prosecuting attorney admitted that there had been no probable cause for the second 9 arrest. The interim County Attorney later dismissed the charges stemming from the 10 11 second arrest for lack of probable cause. 149. On repeated occasions, MCSO officers arrested persons who had expressed 12 their disagreement with MCSO immigration policies during the course of County 13 Board meetings by applauding. These arrests were unjustified, as the arrestees did not 14 disrupt the meeting in any meaningful way. Indeed, the judge presiding over the trial 15 of the arrestees found that the arresting MCSO deputy “believes it is his role to make 16 uncomfortable anyone who express[es] views that disagree with the Sheriff” and that 17 Arpaio’s officers had “trampl[ed] on the First Amendment.” The court acquitted the 18 arrestees on its own motion at the close of the State’s case. 19 150. Another critic of Arpaio was arrested for engaging in protected speech, and 20 was subsequently acquitted. Despite the acquittal, Arpaio explicitly stated that “[i]n 21 the same circumstance, he would be arrested again,” making clear that retaliation, 22 rather than legitimate law enforcement, motivates Arpaio’s treatment of his critics. 23 24 151. deter persons from engaging in protected speech. IV. 25 26 These actions, taken by MCSO and Arpaio, have deterred and are likely to 152. MCSO Is a Recipient of Federal Financial Assistance At all relevant times described in this Complaint, the Defendants have been 27 and continue to be recipients of federal financial assistance from the Department of 28 Justice, either directly or through another recipient of federal financial assistance. 25 1 153. The County has received grants from the DOJ Office of Justice Programs 2 (OJP). MCSO has been and is a subrecipient of grants that the County has received 3 from OJP. MCSO is also a subrecipient of grants from other recipients of federal 4 financial assistance from OJP. 5 6 7 154. MCSO has received grants from the DOJ component Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). 155. MCSO participates in the DOJ Equitable Sharing Program, which is 8 administered by the DOJ Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering 9 Section (AFMLS). 10 156. As a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, the County, through 11 its authorized representatives, certified that it agreed to comply with all requirements 12 imposed by Title VI and the federal regulations implementing Title VI. 13 157. Title VI and its implementing regulations prohibit intentional 14 discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in any of a grant 15 recipient’s or subrecipient’s operations, and they prohibit methods of administration 16 that have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, 17 color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing 18 accomplishment of the objectives of the grant recipient’s or subrecipient’s operations 19 with respect to individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin. 20 158. The assurances signed by the County bind subsequent recipients and 21 subgrantees, including MCSO, to which the County disburses the funds. The County 22 is responsible for ensuring that subsequent recipients and subgrantees comply with the 23 requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulations. 24 159. As a condition of receiving federal financial assistance, MCSO, through its 25 authorized representatives, including Arpaio, agreed to comply with all requirements 26 imposed by Title VI and its implementing regulations. 27 28 160. On December 15, 2011, the United States notified the Defendants that they had failed to comply with Title VI, its implementing regulations, and related 26 1 contractual assurances, and that this lawsuit would follow if compliance could not be 2 achieved by voluntary means. 3 161. Between December 15, 2011, and April 3, 2012, the United States sought to 4 engage with the Defendants in an effort to achieve voluntary compliance with Title 5 VI, its implementing regulations, and contractual assurances, as well as to resolve the 6 other constitutional deficiencies identified in the December 15, 2011 letter. These 7 efforts were unsuccessful. 8 9 162. The United States has determined that all administrative requirements have been exhausted and that securing compliance from the Defendants cannot be achieved 10 by voluntary means. Accordingly, the United States has provided the Defendants’ 11 with a Notice of Intent to File Civil Action. See Exhibits A, B, and C. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 12 13 163. The United States is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 14141(b) to seek 14 declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of law enforcement 15 officer conduct that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or 16 protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 17 164. The United States is authorized under Title VI to seek declaratory and 18 equitable relief and/or the termination of federal funds to ensure that no person shall 19 be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 20 discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal funding on the basis of 21 race, color, or national origin. 22 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 23 DEFENDANTS’ LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES 24 VIOLATE 42 U.S.C. § 14141 AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT 25 26 27 28 165. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 166. The Defendants, their agents, and persons acting on their behalf, including MCSO officers, have engaged in law enforcement practices, including traffic stops, 27 1 workplace raids, home raids, and jail operations, with the intent to discriminate 2 against Latino persons in Maricopa County on the basis of their race, color, or 3 national origin. 4 167. The discriminatory law enforcement practices engaged in by the 5 Defendants, their agents, and persons acting on their behalf constitute a pattern or 6 practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights 7 protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth 8 Amendment of the United States Constitution, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a). 9 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 10 DEFENDANTS’ SEARCHES, ARRESTS, AND DETENTIONS 11 VIOLATE 42 U.S.C. § 14141 AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT 12 13 14 168. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 169. The Defendants, their agents, and persons acting on their behalf, including 15 MCSO officers, have unreasonably searched, arrested, and detained numerous persons 16 in Maricopa County, including searches and arrests without probable cause or 17 reasonable suspicion. 18 170. The unreasonable searches, arrests, and detentions lacking probable cause 19 or reasonable suspicion engaged in by the Defendants, their agents, and persons acting 20 on their behalf constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers 21 that deprives persons of their rights under the Fourth Amendment, in violation of 42 22 U.S.C. § 14141(a). 23 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 24 DEFENDANTS’ TREATMENT OF LATINOS VIOLATES TITLE VI 25 171. 26 27 28 Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 172. The Defendants received and continue to receive federal financial assistance for their programs and activities. 28 1 2 3 4 5 173. The Defendants have engaged in law enforcement practices that are unjustified and have an adverse disparate impact on Latinos. 174. The Defendants have engaged in law enforcement practices with the intent to discriminate against Latinos on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. 175. The Defendants’ discriminatory law enforcement practices, and intentional 6 discrimination, independently violate Title VI and the Title VI implementing 7 regulations. 8 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 9 DEFENDANTS’ TREATMENT OF LATINO LEP PRISONERS 10 VIOLATES TITLE VI 11 12 13 14 15 176. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 177. The Defendants received and continue to receive federal financial assistance for their programs and activities. 178. The Defendants have excluded limited English proficient (LEP) Latino 16 prisoners from participation in, denied LEP Latino prisoners the benefits of, and 17 intentionally subjected LEP Latino prisoners to discrimination under Defendants’ 18 programs and activities relating to the operations of the Maricopa County jails on the 19 basis of those persons’ race, color, or national origin. 20 21 22 23 179. The Defendants’ treatment of Latino LEP prisoners is unjustified and has an adverse disparate impact on Latinos. 180. The Defendants’ discriminatory treatment of LEP individuals violates Title VI, and the Title VI implementing regulations. 24 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 25 DEFENDANTS’ TREATMENT OF LATINOS 26 VIOLATES THE TITLE VI ASSURANCES 27 28 181. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 29 1 182. The Defendants signed contractual assurance agreements with the United 2 States that all of their programs and activities would be conducted in compliance with 3 all the requirements of Title VI and its implementing regulations. 4 5 6 183. The Defendants’ intentional discrimination against Latinos and Latino LEP prisoners violates Title VI and its implementing regulations. 184. The Defendants’ unjustified policing and jail practices that have an adverse 7 disparate impact on Latinos and Latino LEP prisoners violate Title VI and its 8 implementing regulations. 9 185. 10 assurances. The Defendants therefore have violated their Title VI contractual 11 SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: 12 DEFENDANTS’ RETALIATION AGAINST THEIR CRITICS 13 VIOLATES 42 U.S.C. § 14141 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT 14 15 16 186. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-164, above. 187. The Defendants, their agents, and persons acting on their behalf, including 17 MCSO officers, have retaliated against persons in Maricopa County on the basis of 18 protected speech and thereby chilled future protected speech. 19 188. The retaliation against protected speech and the chilling of future protected 20 speech engaged in by the Defendants, their agents, and persons acting on their behalf 21 constitute a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives 22 persons of their rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, 23 in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a). PRAYER FOR RELIEF 24 25 189. WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court: 26 190. Declare that the Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of 27 conduct by MCSO law enforcement officers that deprives persons of rights, 28 30 1 privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the 2 United States, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141(a); 3 191. Declare that the Defendants have excluded persons from participation in, 4 denied persons the benefits of, or subjected persons to discrimination under programs 5 or activities receiving federal financial assistance, on the basis of race, color, or 6 national origin, in violation of Title VI; 7 192. Order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to refrain from 8 engaging in any of the predicate discriminatory acts forming the basis of the pattern or 9 practice of unlawful conduct described herein; 10 193. Order the Defendants, their officers, agents, and employees to adopt and 11 implement policies, procedures, and mechanisms to remedy the pattern or practice of 12 unlawful conduct described herein, and by specifically addressing, inter alia, the 13 following areas: policies and training; non-discriminatory policing and jail 14 operations; stops, searches, and arrests; response to crimes of sexual violence; posse 15 operations; jail operations; supervision; misconduct complaint intake, investigation, 16 and adjudication; retaliation; oversight and transparency; and community 17 engagement; and 18 194. Order such other relief as the interests of justice may require. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DATED: May 10, 2012 Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General Roy L. Austin, Jr. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan M. Smith (DC Bar #396578) Chief, Special Litigation Section 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 /s/ Winsome G. Gayle_________ Winsome G. Gayle (NY Bar #3974193) Sergio Perez (CA Bar #274798) Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar #4141636) Edward G. Caspar (MA Bar #650566) Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel. (202) 305-4164/Fax (202) 514-6273 winsome.gayle@usdoj.gov Attorneys for the United States 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32

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?