Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his individual and
office capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona; et al.
14
No. 07-cv-02513-PHX-GMS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE
POST-HEARING BRIEF OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO RESPOND TO
PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO CHIEF SANDS
NOVEMBER 20 MEMORANDUM
Defendants.
15
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
17
18
19
20
21
22
MEMORANDUM to the Clerks office using the Courts CM/ECF System, and thereby
23
24
25
26
27
28
4843-0416-2604.1
Plaintiffs argue that Chief Sands has already had a full opportunity to make any
arguments he thinks he needs to make, and for that reason they oppose Chief Sandss
Motion for Leave to File a Post-Hearing Brief or, in the Alternative, to Respond to
Chief Sands was allotted 30 minutes to argue his Motion for Summary Judgment,
address issues raised by the Court in its November 18, 2015 Order, and present closing
exasperated when Plaintiffs presented new arguments and authority in opposition to Chief
Sandss Motion for Summary Judgment for the first time during the November 20, 2015
10
oral argument. Chief Sandss counsel attempted to address the new issues raised by
11
Plaintiffs counsel by researching the same over the noon recess. Plaintiffs suggestion
12
that Chief Sands was provided a full opportunity to make any arguments he thinks he
13
14
15
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333
16
(1976). Chief Sands respectfully contends that he has not had a meaningful opportunity to
17
be heard given what he has at stake a reputation 30 years in the making as a law-abiding
18
public servant, his financial ability to continue supporting himself and his family with
19
ailing health in his retirement years, and the potential for criminal prosecution. This is
20
particularly the case as to the arguments that Plaintiffs made in their Response in
21
22
23
Chief Sands was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for
24
an alleged failure on his part to take reasonable steps to communicate the injunction to the
25
appropriate individuals within MCSO after receiving notice of it from defense counsel.
26
See Doc. 880 at 15:8-16. The evidence establishes that Chief Sands communicated the
27
preliminary injunction and directed that training and briefing about it be developed and
28
4843-0416-2604.1
distribution). See Ex. 213 (Lt. Sousa to Lt. Jakowinicz: I told Chief Sands I would
forward this to you so you can write up a Readers Digest version of the judges order to be
put out Office wide via Briefing Board.); Contempt Hrg Tr. at 1649:24 to 1650:1 (Tim
Caseys testimony that Chief Sands told him on December 23, 2011, he was going to call
Lt. Sousa to tell him the order was on the way via an email from Casey and to get it to the
troops.); 329:3-6 (Chief Sandss testimony that he spoke to Lieutenant Sousa about
getting together with Mr. Casey to put together the training); 334:11-15; Ex. 2540 (Lt.
Sousa to Sgt. Palmer: Per our phone conversation write up a couple of scenarios (right
way and wrong way) based on Judge Snows order to MCSO and your conversations with
10
Tim Casey. . . . Once that is done we will get with training reference putting something out
11
12
13
14
Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs make two problematic arguments to which Chief Sands
15
has not had an opportunity to respond: a) Chief Sands understood the preliminary
16
injunction order and willfully disobeyed it by failing to implement training about the order
17
for MCSO personnel most likely to violate it and b) that Chief Sands should be held
18
jointly and severally liable for victim compensation. Doc. 1589 at 6:9 to 7:23 and 14:1 to
19
15:16.
20
21
evidence. For example, Plaintiffs claim that Chief Sands deliberately decided to comply
22
with Sheriff Arpaios preference to refrain from notifying all MCSO personnel about the
23
order. Doc 1589 at 7:14-15. The evidence shows otherwise. Chief Sands told Sheriff
24
Arpaio that he thought all the deputies should be briefed on the injunction, and Sheriff
25
Arpaio in turn told him [j]ust brief the HSU deputies because that is what the attorney
26
said to do. 261:4-17. However, Chief Sands told Tim Casey he wanted training on the
27
order to go out office-wide. Contempt Hrg Tr. at 1650:12-25. He said he was going to
28
have Lt. Sousa to get it to the troops, id., and then called Lt. Sousa and talked to him
4843-0416-2604.1
about getting together with Mr. Casey to put together the training, id. at 329:3-6. He
felt that [they] put the training into play, along with Tim Casey, regardless of what the
The subsequent emails show the training was being developed for office-wide
distribution via E-Learning. Id. at 328:23 to 329:2; 334:11-15; Ex. 2540. Chief Sands
would have seen the training was being developed and would be distributed office-wide
via E-Learning when he was ccd on Lt. Sousas email sending the scenarios to Tim
Casey. Ex. 2540. But he was not ccd on any of the emails showing the training ran into
problems. Id. In fact, no one came to him to tell him they were having a problem.
10
Contempt Hrg Tr. at 334:19-22. Based on Lt. Sousas excellent track record about
11
following up on things, he assumed the task had been finished. Id. at 333:19-21; 335:20-
12
22. Additionally, when he learned later in October of 2012 that Plaintiffs were claiming the
13
MCSO had violated the injunction, he directed an office-wide Briefing Board be sent. See
14
Ex. 213 (Lt. Sousa to Lt. Jakowinicz: I told Chief Sands I would forward this to you so
15
you can write up a Readers Digest version of the judges order to be put out Office wide via
16
Briefing Board.).
17
Plaintiffs seem to argue, or at least imply, that Chief Sands understanding of the
18
order is evidence that he willfully disobeyed it. This assumes that Chief Sands not only
19
had the power to but also the duty to brief those under him on his own interpretation of the
20
order, rather than doing as he actually did, which was to have the appropriate MCSO
21
personnel meet with attorney Tim Casey so that he, a trained attorney, could properly
22
explain the order. Their assumption proves false Chief Sands did not have such power.
23
The Sheriff did not grant him the authority. Chief Sands discussed his understanding of
24
the order with Sheriff Arpaio, and the Sheriff disagreed with Chief Sands view of the
25
order. Contempt Hrg Tr. at 1957:12-13. He instead told Chief Sands that the Sheriffs
26
Office would do what the attorney said to do. Id. at 261:4-17. Chief Sands did what
27
was within his power to do by having HSUs commanding officer confer with the attorney.
28
Plaintiffs argue that Chief Sands should be held jointly and severally liable for
4843-0416-2604.1
victim compensation. Doc. 1589 at 14:1 to 15:16. They include no discussion about how
this would be consistent with the Courts obligation to use the least possible power
adequate to the end proposed. See Spallone v. United States, 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990).
As far as Chief Sands is aware, this is the first time Plaintiffs have raised any such
argument. Chief Sands should be provided a full and fair opportunity to address it.
Chief Sands should also have the opportunity to address to what extent MCSOs
preliminary injunction violations can be attributed to him even if the Court were to find
that he failed to take reasonable steps to communicate the injunction to the appropriate
individuals within MCSO after receiving notice of it from defense counsel. See Doc. 880
10
at 15:8-16. The violations are likely not attributable to him since the problem is not that
11
the order was not communicated to the HSU. It was. HSU was briefed on the order.
12
13
14
In retrospect, Chief Sands appears to have interpreted the order correctly, but when
15
he shared his understanding with the Sheriff, the Sheriff disagreed. Contempt Hrg Tr. at
16
1957:12-13. The Sheriff said they would instead do what their attorney said to do. Id. at
17
261:4-17. Chief Sands thus did what was within his authority to do by having HSUs
18
Lieutenants meet with Tim Casey. He had Lieutenant Sousa coordinate with Mr. Casey
19
on how not to violate the order. Id. at 1966:2-7. He had Lt. Sousa consult with Tim Casey
20
in order to develop training. Id. at 329:3-6. Numerous meetings and discussions resulted
21
wherein Lt. Sousa, Lt. Jakowinicz, Sgt. Palmer, and Sgt. Trowbridge all met with Tim
22
Casey about the preliminary injunction order. See Ex. 2540; Ex. 213; Ex. 2533; Ex. 2513;
23
24
Unfortunately, after all those meetings and discussions, Lt. Sousa, Lt. Jakowinicz, Sgt.
25
Palmer, and Sgt. Trowbridge all uniformly misunderstood the order. Contempt Hrg Tr. at
26
793:22 to 794:7 (Sousa); 2781-82; Ex. 2252; Contempt Hrg Tr. at 369:21 to 371:8
27
28
order to attribute responsibility for this misunderstanding to Chief Sands, one would have
4843-0416-2604.1
to assume it would be unreasonable for Chief Sands to rely on MCSOs attorney to explain
It is not altogether clear where the breakdown in communication occurred, but the
fact that there was one is apparent. Tim Casey explained the order to both Lt. Sousa and
Sgt. Palmer, after which Sgt. Palmer drafted several training scenarios. Ex. 2540; Ex.
2533. Yet Sgt. Palmers scenarios show he thought it was permissible to detain individuals
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4843-0416-2604.1
traffic stop or lawful investigation of a state crime, and (2) that once directed to detain an
individual by ICE, MCSOs deputies could detain the individual because at that point it
was ICEs detention. Contempt Hrg Tr. at 793:22 to 794:7; 2781-82; Ex. 2252. This
understanding was mirrored by Sheriff Arpaios testimony at trial on July 24, 2012. Tim
Casey, who elicited the testimony from the Sheriff, asked questions that suggest
Q.
And you have that authority today. In any of your law enforcement
actions can you, if you come across someone unlawful, detain them?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
14
A.
We call ICE, and they can pick them up or we deliver the person to
their office.
Q.
A.
I think probably in the last two weeks weve made over 40 arrests of
illegal aliens coming into our county, and a few we did not have the
state charge, including some young children, and ICE did accept
those people.
7
8
9
10
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Trial Tr. at 502:14 to 503:2 (Doc. 572) (Jul. 24, 2012). In fact, turning individuals over to
22
ICE is something Casey stated was not a violation of preliminary injunction in a post-trial
23
24
25
26
27
28
4843-0416-2604.1
Defendants Response in Rebuttal to Plaintiffs Post Trial Brief at 17:2-11 (Aug. 16, 2015)
(Doc. 568) (citations omitted). Again in October of 2012, in response to a letter from
Plaintiffs attorney Andre Segura, Casey wrote that this procedure was not a violation of
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ex. 2514. Chief Sands thus believes there is sufficient reason to permit him to address
liability apportionment and causation in responding to Plaintiffs joint and several liability
argument.
Plaintiffs argue that if Chief Sands is permitted to comment on matters discussed
during the November 20, 2015, oral argument, they should in fairness be permitted to do
the same. Chief Sands agrees: Everyone should have a full and fair opportunity to be
heard. For that reason, Chief Sands respectfully requests leave to file a brief, whether it be
a post-hearing brief or an opportunity to respond to the arguments in Plaintiffs Response.
DATED December 24, 2015.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4843-0416-2604.1