Arpaio's Letter To The DOJ

Wrrrnu
B. Jorurs, Jn. TETEPfloNE: (602) 263.1i14
zgfl
IIIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUE
Fnx: (602) 200-7801

E.MAil.: wJoNEs@JsHFrRM.coM Jorru T. MlsrrRsoru
TETEPHoNE:
\JT I
QIJ|ffaN& HoCHULI,
SUrTE 800 PHoEilrx, AnrzoNA 85012
P.L.C.
PH0NE: (6021 263-1700 trx: (6021 651-75SS

WWW.JSHFIM.COM
(002) 263-7330 Fnx: (602) 200-7846

E-MArt: JMASTEBSoN@JsHFrRM.coM
JoSEPH
J. Popouzro*
TETEPHoNE: (602) 263-1 741
Fnx: (6021 200.7876

E.MAr[: JPoPouzro@JsHfl BM.coM
*A[so
ADMTTTED rN
CoNNEcilcuT
AND WASHTNGT0N, D.C.
January
4,2012
Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW V/ashington, DC 20530-000 1
Re:
Dear Mr. Perez:
U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV 1 O- 1 0878-PHX-GMS
This letter is in response to your December 15,2011 letter in which you set forth the Department of Justice's 'ofindings" of its investigation into alleged civil rights violations of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office ("MCSO"). Your letter specifically demanded that we inform you of whether the MCSO is interested in participating in constructive dialogue by the close of business on January 4, 2012. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpio nd the MCSO re certnly nterested in prticipating in constructive dilogue, but constructve dalogue cn only occur if the DOJ provdes the f.cts and nformtion on which it bases itsJindings.
Good Faith Voluntarv Efforts Of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO
The good faith efforts of Sheriff Arpaio, MCSO personnel, and counsel to achieve compliance by voluntary means are undeniable. To deem that the MCSO is not engaged in good faith efforts to achieve compliance voluntarily simply due to a request for the factual basis of the DOJ's findings, would be an alarming and cavalier dismissal of the serious underlying issues of and the MCSO's extensive, voluntary, continued cooperation with the DOJ's investigation.
2729738.1
January 4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C. in your December 15, 20ll
Page2
letter, you former counsel and the DOJ. That emphasized the strained relations between the MCSO and its dispute between the parties over the scope of the investigation, and the DOJ's associated requests for information and unfettered access to MCSO facilities and personnel, was ancient history at the time of the conference. The lawsuit that stemmed from that dispute was dismissed by agreement of the parties and that dismissal occurred due to the voluntary cooperation of the MCSO in providing access to facilities and personnel, as well as a staggering amount of documentation and information pursuant to the DOJ's request. As you are well aware, however, the parties have worked incredibly well together in furtherance of the DOJ's investigation for well over a year, despite the portrayal of their relationship and of MCSO's supposed lack of cooperation. The cooperation that the DOJ enjoyed, and still enjoys in this investigation, was not merely the product of the attomeys involved, but of Sheriff Arpaio, and MCSO command staff I officers and personnel.
The failure to accurately portray MCSO's cooperation publicly was unfortunate
and misleading. In our impromptu December 15, 2011 meeting with DOJ attorneys Roy Austin, Avner Shapiro, Peter Gray, and Jonathon Smith, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin
During yorrr press conference and
privately thanked us for the cooperation and efforts that enabled the DOJ to conduct this investigation. That was the DOJ's acknowledgement of the of the MCSO's voluntary cooperation with the DOJ's investigation, albeit, until now, merely a private acknowledgement.
Mr. Austin's private expression of gratitude was also accompanied by an apology,
which also was not mentioned in your press conference, or otherwise shared with MCSO personnel, the citizens of Maricopa County or the public at large. Mr. Austin specifically apologized to us for not being able to control the timing or manner of the announcement of the investigation's findings, despite his earlier promise that if the MCSO fully cooperated with the DOJ's investigation, a politicization of this investigation would not occur. Instead, this investigation became a political sideshow with your surprise press conference and issuance of findings, despite the assurances of the DOJ personnel in our initial meeting on November 2, 2010 that it would not. In light of the DOJ's assurances, we do not consider notif,rcation of these
findings and your press conference at a meeting held ninety (90) minutes before that conference
to be adequate notice. V/hile Mr. Austin telephoned to request a meeting with us the evening before your press conference, he did so at the close of business and without the courtesy of disclosing the subject matter of that prospective meeting. Blind-sided, we again express our dissatisfaction with the manner in which the DOJ chose to announce its findings.
Nevertheless, regardless of this political gamesmanship, the undisclosed broken promise and apology, and the misleading portrayal of this matter to the media, we stand ready to participate in the constructive dialogue you have suggested.
tPlese see
Exhibit I attached hereto for abriefswnmary of MCSO's cooperation with this
investigation.
2729738.t
January
Page 3
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
The Desired "Constructive DialogFe"

We, too, preer to resolve ths matter wthout litaton, but wll not cower at the thret of ltigaton, either. While we are also interested in participating in constructive dialogue, we submit that constructive dialogue can only occur if the DOJ provides the underlying facts and information for its findings. The broad description that the DOJ has provided regarding its investigation of MCSO's practices, along with its vague outline of its findings, does not provide "fair notice" of any alleged violation as the DOJ contends. In fact, we are struck by the dearth of facts contained in your 22 page, December 15, 20ll letter, and are shocked by the presentation of conclusions unaccompanied by factual specificity.
During our December 15, 2011 meeting, your staff stated that the DOJ would possibly share some information and facts that provide the foundation of the findings contained in your December 15,2011 letter. Only with all of the underlying facts and information relevant to the DOJ's conclusions in hand, however, can we truly evaluate these findings, determine their merit and make any necessary changes and adjustments to the MCSO to attain our mutually stated goal: ensuring that MCSO functions effectively, efficiently and constitutionally. Yet, subsequent to that meeting, the DOJ seems to have abandoned its position of even providing
some of the facts to support its findings.
Recently, a Justice Department spokesperson, Xochitl Hinojosa, stated that the would neither make public the statistical study upon which the DOJ relies, nor provide it to DOJ the MCSO unless it was ompelled to do so in "exprt discovery."2 Ms. Hinojosa's comments clearly allude to litigation. and may certainly reveal the DOJ's position that proceeding to litigation is unavoidable, if we dare to request the factual bases of its findings. If the DOJ's stance is to conceal the facts underlying its findings unless it is forced to reveal them in litigation, that stance is absurd, counterproductive, unfortunate, and contrary to its guidelines.
The Guidelines for the Enforcement of Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 CFR $50.3, require that aconcerted effort be made to persuade any allegedly non-complying applicant or recipient to voluntarily comply with Title VL The MCSO vehemently contends that it does not discriminate against Latinos, or anyone for that matter; it, therefore, contends that it is in full compliance with all Constitutional mandates. All we seek is the facts on which you rely in support of your statements to the contrary.
These guidelines further require that efforts to secure voluntary compliance should be pursued at every stage of an enforcement action. While a suit f,rled with the intent to enforce compliance is within the DOJ's arsenal, the filing of a lawsuit would require a total disregard of MCSO's voluntary cooperation, will result in great financial cost to taxpayers at both the federal and local level, as well as the delayed conclusion of this investigation and the supposed reforms that the DOJ seeks. Litigation, therefore, is something that the parties must make every effort to avoid. Ironically, the DOJ sued Sheriff Arpaio to compel the production of
2
See "Profiling Proof Must be Public." The Arizona Republic 30 December
201l: 86. Print.
2729738.1
January Page 4
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
information it requested, while it appears that the DOJ may now file suit to prevent the disclosure of information Sheriff Arpaio now requests that is relevant to the same investigation.
In addition, in its Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints Alleging Violations of Title VI and Other Non-Discrimination
Statutes, the DOJ defines reliabl .rrid"tt.. as "that which is dependable and trustworthy."3 It further explains that "[r]eliability is a relative concept and requires the exercise of judgment."u Vy'e are merely requesting the opportunity to conduct our own weighing of the reliability of the evidence in your possession.
Moreover, it appears to us that your December 15, 2011 Summary of Findings is a Findings ("LOF"), as opposed to an Investigative Report ("IR"), as defined in the Letter of Manual. A LOF, according to the DOJ, is issued when the investigation, as here, is incomplete and does not include the specificity of an IR.) Please let us know whether the DOJ intends to draft an IR in the future and, if so, whether it intends to allow the MCSO (the "recipient") to offer rebuttal evidence or a position statement.6 V/e submit that rebutting the evidence the DOJ possesses is impossible due to the DOJ's disclosure of mere conclusions without fact. Furthermore, it appears that the Manual also requires the presentation of both sides of the complain(s) where-the investigation has revealed different versions of the facts.T The DOJ presented conclusions of interviews of unidentified witnesses, failed to provide specific citations to sources of information, now publicly refuses to provide expert reports and, generally, appears intent on stymieing any attempt to assess the evidence it claims it has. However, the Manual also instructs DOJ investigators to test conclusions by considering all possible rebuttal arguments by the recipient and the complainant.s Obviously, the DOJ has made it impossible for the recipient to present the other side of the complaint, or to otherwise test its conclusions, in this
instance.
We sincerely hope that the DOJ's recent public stance regarding its refusal to disclose information relevant to this investigation, which starkly contrasts its private, yet deficient pledge to provide at least some information, is not the foreshadowing of a preordained, DOJ decision to file suit in the face of the MCSO's mere request for information. Please know, however, tht we stnd redy to litigate th matter should the DOJ refuse to provide the information we seek.
V/ithout providing such information, the DOJ expects us to proceed in a vacuum and institute requested changes blindly, without considering the facts upon which the DOJ bases
3
Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints Alleging Violations of Title and Other Non-Discrimination Statutes (1998), p. 99. o Id. at 1oo,
VI
5
Id. atl4g-47.
See
6
7
Id. at
l5l.
Id. at163. t Id. atl4s.

2729',t38.1
January Page 5
4,2012
its findings. If the DOJ chooses the litigation route, that route will lead the parties through discovery and result in the DOJ's compelled provision of the information we now request to evaluate its findings and to determine what changes at the MCSO may be necessary, if any. It appears through Ms. Hinojosa's statements that the DOJ agrees that litigation will ultimately
result in the DOJ's provision of the information we seek. And with the application of evidentiary rules, orders precluding the DOJ from presenting what it claims to be evidence at this time are probable.
The DOJ asked for transparency from the MCSO and we provided it by complying with the DOJ's requests for facility access, voluminous documentation, and information and interviews, including two interviews of Sheriff Arpaio. V/e now request
reciprocal transparency and reasonable cooperation from the DOJ. Appended to this letter is a Request for Facts and Information that mirrors the statements and conclusions set forth in your December 15,2011 letter and demonstrates our thirst for the facts which you claim to suiport these statements and conclusions.e Proceeding in the present factual void is impossible and, frankly, unacceptable and unjust, especially in light of the DOJ's stated goal of helping the MCSO to achieve full compliance. As you well know, however, litigation will remedy this factual void, but at great, unnecessary and avoidable expense. The choice is yours, but litigation is clearly the foolish choice in this instance.
Please respond by the close of business on January 18,2011 as to whether the DOJ will agree to provide us with the facts and information we seek and to which Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO are entitled. As you will see from the attached Request for Documents and Information, we believe that the DOJ should be able to provide us with all the facts, information and documentation which purportedly support its findings by March 19,2012.
We look forward to hearing from you and to resolving this dispute and this
investigation amicably and without protracted, expensive, and truly unnecessary litigation.
oseph J. Popolizio
For the Firm

JJP/jan
cc:
Avner Shapiro
t Please see the Request for Facts and Information attached hereto
as
Exhibit 2'
2'.729738.1
T,XHIBIT 1
Brief Summary of the MCSO's Cooperation with the DOJ's Investieation

Jones, Skelton &, Hochuli's ("JSH") involvement in this investigation and the associated, pending lawsuit, JSH attorneys V/illiam R. Jones, John T. Masterson and Joseph J. Popolizio met with DOJ attorneys Roy Austin, Matt Colangelo, Amin Aminfar, and Kavitha Sreeharsha of the DOJ on November 2,2010. Chief Jerry Sheridan and Chief Jack Maclntyre participated in this meeting also.
Shortly after the commencement
of
At that meeting, the parties reached an agreement that all parties would cooperate to resolve the previous disputes and move this matter forward to a cooperative, successful conclusion. At the conclusion of that meeting, MCSO Chiefs Jerry Sheridan and Jack Maclntyre offered immediate access to all of the Maricopa County Jail facilities to the present DOJ personnel that very day. The DOJ declined that invitation. However, within days of that meeting, the MCSO provided the DOJ with MCSO policies that the DOJ had requested.
The mutual cooperation that the parties enjoyed from that point on culminated in the dismissal of the lawsuit (United States v. Maricopa County, et al., CV10-1878-PHX-GMS). The Agreement which set forth the mechanism of dismissal of that action resulted from days of negotiations, including negotiations on Memorial Day. The result of those negotiations was not a settlement as portrayed in the media, but a stipulated dismissal of the action by United States District Judge Murray Snow on August I,2011. That dismissal was a clear reflection of the vast cooperation that the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio provided the DOJ in this investigation.
In addition, pursuant to the DOJ's request, we affanged a total of 230 interviews, including 145 inmates interviews, 85 MCSO staff interviews, as well as interviews of Sheriff Arpaio and high ranking command staff. The DOJ freely chose each inmate or MCSO
interviewee.
Moreover, the MCSO has also provided the DOJ with an inordinate amount of documentation and information pursuant to the DOJ's requests. Again, this reflects the complete cooperation of the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio. To date, the MCSO has provided the DOJ 86,398 pages of documentation, not including the 931 gigabytes of records and documents provided to the DOJ on a terabyte hard drive this srrnmer. Furthermore, on July 28,2011, the MCSO provided the DOJ with a 111 page comprehensive response to the DOJ's First Request for Documents and Information. Shortly thereafter, the MCSO made available approximately 165 boxes of documents for the DOJ to review in response to their Request. MCSO attomeys have also organized and provided a database of that documentation to streamline the DOJ's review. Thereafter, in correspondence and during telephone conferences, we repeatedly mentioned the availability of this documentation for the DOJ's review. DOJ attorneys spent merely a couple of hours conducting a cursory review of this documentation; in the weeks afterword, the DOJ informed MCSO counsel that budgetary constraints would delay a more extensive review of these available documents. Nevertheless, the organization and labeling of that documentation enabled the DOJ to select those documents in which it was interested.
27324t4.t
What's more, only shortly before Assistant Attorney General Perez's press conference on December 15, 2011 did the DOJ identiff which documents within those boxes it would like to see. At this time, MCSO counsel is in the process of scanning and bates stamping those documents to provide to the DOJ. It is our estimation that we will soon be providing to the DOJ slightly over 6,000 documents that have been available for the DOJ to review for many
months.
Again, this is merely an overview of MCSO's cooperation with this investigation cooperation that the DOJ has enjoyed for well over a year.
2732414.1
EXHIBIT 2
Wrrum
R. Jorurs. Jn. TETEPHoNE: (6021 263.1714
2901 lllosrH CENT8AI AvEttluE
Fnx: (602) 200-7801

E-Mrr: wJoNEs@JsHHRM.coM Jorru T. Mnsrrnsoru
TETEPHoNE:
QHtr,N&P.L.C. L-/I T
HOCHULI,
SUITE 800
PHoENrx, ARrzoNA 85012 PH0NE: (602) 263.1700
tnx: (602) 651-75S9

WWW.JSHFIRM.Cf}M
(602) 263-7330
tnx:
(602) 200-7846
E.MAII.: JMASTEBSON@JSHFIRM,COM
JoSEPH
J. Popouzro'
TETEPH0NE: (602) 263.1
i41
tx:
(602) 200-7876
E-MAil.: Jp0p0uzt0@JSHFtBM.c0M
*AIsO
ADMITTEO IN CONNECTICUT
ANo WAsHrNcToN, D.C.
January
4,2012
Thomas E.Percz Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NVy' V/ashington, DC 20530-000 1
Re:
Dear Mr. Perez'.
U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV1O.I0878-PHX-GMS
Requests for Facts and Information
V/e, Sheriff Arpaio, and the MCSO truly desire to address each of the DOJ's findings contained in your December 15, 2011 letter. However, as indicated in the letter accompanying this Request for Facts and Information, we cannot proceed in the factual vacuum you have presented to us. It is imperative that the DOJ provide the specific facts and information upon which it bases its findings. Otherwise, it is impossible to address any of the issues and concerns outlined in your December 15,2011 letter'
To engage in an assessment and evaluation of the MCSO's function, to consider and address each of the DOJ's expressed concerns, and to attain what the DOJ and we discussed many times since our very first meeting on November 2,2010 - ensuring that the MCSO operates in adherence to all applicable constitutional standards - \ile request the following specific facts and information.
At this stage in the DOJ's enforcement action and given the complete cooperation
of the MCSO that you have enjoyed, we believe that the DOJ is obligated to make every effort to secure the voluntary compliance of the MCSO which, at this juncture, depends on the DOJ's mere provision of the factual detail behind its findings.
2732833.t
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page2
We assume that the DOJ has the following documents and information at its disposal given the fact that they purportedly form the bases of the findings set forth in your December 15,2011 letter. Thus, we assume that the DOJ could provide the following requested documents and information by March 19,2012. Please let us know whether production of the requested documents by that date will create any unanticipated diffrculties. Otherwise, we look forward to receiving the requested documents and information on or before March 19,2012.
For your ease of reference, our request for information will track the headings and content of your December 15,2011 letter very closely.
Discriminatorv Policins
V/ith regard to the DOJ's findings relating to MCSO's alleged discriminatory

police practices, we request the following:
1.
Please provide a complete copy of the recent statistical study that the DOJ
commissioned regarding MCSO ftafftc stop activities on Maricopa County roadways which purportedly concludes that Latino drivers are four to nine times more likely to be stopped than
similarly situated non-Latino drivers.
2.
Please
identify each Human Smuggling Unit (HSU) stop over a three (3)
year period upon which the DOJ's expeqt law enforcement consultants relied upon in reaching
their conclusion that one-fifth (1/5) of these reports involve Latino drivers and contained
information indicating that MCSO HSU Off,rcers conducted these stops in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Please also provide the identity, files, reports, notes, writings, relevant to the conclusions of each law enforcement expert consultant
who concluded that these HSU stops were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The
curriculum vitae of each expert is also requested.
3.
Please describe, with particularity, each "individual account" regarding
MCSO deputies stopping Latinos on the basis of their appearance. In doing so, please identify the individual by providing a name and contact information so that we may conduct our own
interviews.
'We
would also request any statements provided to the DOJ, either recorded or
2732833.1
January 4,2012 Page 3
JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P.L.C.
written, which memorialized these individual accounts and any factual information regarding
these alleged discriminatory stops including, but not limited to, the date and time of each stop.
4.
Please
identify and describe in detail the specific instances in which the
DOJ has alleged that immigration-related crime suppression activities were initiated in the community after the MCSO received complaints that described no criminal activity, but
allegedly merely referred to individuals with "dark skin" congregating in one area or speaking
Spanish at local businesses. In doing so, please identify each alleged instance, the individual(s)
involved, the MCSO offrcers involved, and the date and source of each complaint, and the date
and location of each alleged instance.
5.
Please also explain
in detail any alleged causal connection between the
MCSO's crime suppression activity and a particular complaint(s), if any.
Discriminatorv Jail Practices
6.
Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,
handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers
discriminatorily punished Latino LEP inmates who failed to understand commands given in
English by, for example, locking down their pods or imposing disciplinary segregations.
7.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers refused to accept forms completed by Latino LEP inmates in Spanish, as well as each and every instance that the DOJ believes that Spanish language requests were accepted, but Latino LEP inmates
faced delays in services for not submitting requests and grievance forms in English.
2'132833.1
January Page 4
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 6'L I-IOCHULI, P.L.C.
8.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO pressures Latino LEP
inmates to sign voluntary return forms that implicate constitutional and statutory rights without
language assistance.
9.
handwriften, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies-and-claims to allegedly demonsfrate-thatlatino LEP inru-ates are limited-in
their ability to access important services, such as services enabling early release, and are denied
access to basic information about programs and services.
10.
Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded
or written), or writings of any kind which the DOJ contends that will allegedly demonstrate that
most announcements in the jails are made in English only.
Findinss Pertainine to Both Police and Jail Practices

I
1.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO retaliates against
individuals
who criticize police
practices, including practices relating
to its
alleged
discriminatory treatment of Latinos, by allegedly subjecting its critics to retaliatory detentions

and arrests without cause, unfounded civil lawsuits, and other baseless complaints. In doing so,
please provide the identity and contact information
of each individual to whom the DOJ alludes
and claims experienced retaliation, as well as the facts and circumstances underlying each
alleged instance of retaliation.
2732833.r
January Page 5
4,2012
12.
In addition,
please provide each instance and o'other
of alleged retaliatory detention,
arrest without cause, unfounded
civil lawsuit,
baseless complaints" to which the DOJ
refers including, but not limited to, the identification of each individual, the date, circumstances, and location of each detention and arrest, each civil lawsuit identified by case name and docket
number, and the identity
of each individual who has claimed to be the subject of
oobaseless
complaints," including the date, facts, and circumstances of each alleged baseless complaint.
13.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly fosters and
perpetuates discriminatory police and
jail practices by failing to
operate in accordance with basic
policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and
correctional safeguards against discrimination
accountability systems.
in
such areas as training, supervision, and
14.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate the alleged, pervasive nature of
MCSO's discriminatory treatment of Latinos which allegedly reflects a general culture of bias
within the MCSO. In doing so, please define in detail the "pervasive nature of MCSO's
discriminatory treatment of Latinos," as well as the alleged "general culture of bias within the
MCSO." f,esal Findinss Under Section 14141& Title VI and its
15,
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly discriminates
j- .^^.1:^^ ---:,--L r ^+:^^^ L-. ^.^-^-:--*^^+i^^^ lBArIrSt LlLlllui UJi lliXllr lrr PUU\/S Pr4vrrv +L-+ ',i^l^+o +1"o E^'rol Drnfanfnn lll4l Yrvr4rw ruw LYqqr rvvvlrvr lorrce nf the
2732833.1
January Page 6
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Fourteenth Amendment
to the United
States Constitution, Section
l4I4I, Title VI
and the
Department' s Title VI implementing regulations.
16.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly discriminates
against its Latino LEP inmates on the basis of their national origin in violation of Title the Department's Title VI implementing regulations'
VI
and
17.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly engages in
pattern or practice of unlawful seizures, including unjustified stops, detentions, and arrests of
Latinos in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section
14t4t
18.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly engages in pattern or practice
of retaliatory actions
against individuals who complain about MCSO's
conduct or criticize MCSO's operations and policies, especially its immigration-related policies,
in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section
l4l4l.
INVESTIGATIVE BACKGROUND
Please identify,
in detail, any and all publicly available information that
the DOJ considered and upon which
it relied in June 2008 to open a preliminary inquiry
into
allegations that the MCSO was allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct.
2732833.1
January 4,2012 PageT
JONES, SKELTON 6l" HOCHULI, P.L.C.
If this public information
consisted of media reports, please identify each media report by date,
author and/or commentator as well as the media outlet that released such report(s).
20.
201
Please provide each and every document that the DOJ gathered and
reviewed from various sources extemal to the MCSO referenced on page 5 of the December 15,
I letter. In doing so, please identiff each of the external,
various sources to whom the DOJ
alludes.
21.
Please identify each and every one the numerous Maricopa County
residents whom the DOJ interviewed and allegedly provided accounts
of being victims of
MCSO's allegedly discriminatory police practices. In addition to identifying each interviewee,

please identify the interviewer, as
well as any of the summaries, recordings, and any written
statement or affidavit obtained as a result of or which necessitated each interview.
22.
Please provide the analyses, reports, summaries, notes and correspondence
from each and every expert including, but not limited to, the four current and former police
executives with extensive knowledge of policing standards and practices, a correctional expert
with substantial experience as a coffectional administrator and a jail and prison auditor, and
statistician with extensive experience reviewing police practices, alluded to but not identified
page 5 of the December 15,2011
letter. In doing
so, please provide the curriculum vitae
of each
expert upon whose analyses the DOJ has relied in reaching its findings.
FACTUAL FINDINGS
23.
Please
identiff
each and every deputy, detention officer, supervisory staff,
and command staff of the MCSO that allegedly engaged in a widespread pattern or practice
of
law enforcement and jail activities that discriminated against Latinos. In doing so, please
provide specific facts, details, and circumstances of each allegation of discrimination that the
2732833.r
DOJ contends constitutes a widespread pattem or practice of law enforcement and jail activities
that discriminate against Latinos.
24.
Please define the "culture of bias" to which the DOJ refers and that the
DOJ contends to result in the alleged discriminatory treatment of Latinos. In defining and
describing the alleged "culture of bias," please provide each and every fact, document, report,
statement (recorded, handwrifien or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all
evidence which allegedly demonstrates that this culture of bias exists.
25.
Please define the "institutional deficiencies" to which the DOJ refers and
that the DOJ contends to result in the alleged discriminatory treatment of Latinos' In defining and describing the "institutional deficiencies," please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any
and all evidence which allegedly demonstrates that institutional deficiency exists.
A.
26.
Discriminatory Police Practices

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that fhe MCSO has implemented
practices that treat Latinos as
if
they are all undocumented, regardless of whether a legitimate
factual basis exists to suspect that person is undocumented.
27.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly emphasizes
its immigration enforcement efforts without following basic policing protocols and does not
implement any meaningful safeguards against discriminatory police practices'
In doing so,
Tn
--7---- lurrtrry ^^^L uiaJlv -^1:^:-^ prgils :t^-^+:c-. all L^^:^ yurrvru --^+^^^1. +]^ot t1".a lffrCl- ollpcerllr feils fn fnllnrv PluLuvur Lrr4r rrrv vrvuv
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON 6L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
addition, please identiff each and every safeguard against discriminatory police practices that the MCSO allegedly has failed to implement.
28.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO has allegedly engaged in a series of practices that have adversely and disproportionately impacted Latinos.
29.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO deputies allegedly target Latino drivers. In doing so, please provide the statistical analysis of MCSO's traffic stops made
since the initiation
of MCSO's immigration enforcement program that allegedly shows that
MCSO's enforcement practices have a discriminatory impact on Latino drivers' In doing so,
please provide the curriculum vitae of this expert, as well as a list of cases in which he has
provided expert testimony, as well as the professional literature that he has reviewed to which you refer on page 6 of the December 15,2011 letter.
30.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO's HSU allegedly
engages in unlawful conduct
in its attempt to enforce immigration related laws. In doing
so,
please identify with specif,rcity each and every instance of allegedly unlawful conduct to which
you refer.
31.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that HSU deputies allegedly stop,
detain and/or arrest Latino drivers without adequate cause. In doing so, please identify each and
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON {- HOCHULI, P.L.C.
every stop, detention and/or arrest of Latino drivers that allegedly occurred without adequate
cause on which the DOJ relies to support this contention.
32.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstntethat roughly
20%o
of the reports that
the DOJ contends to contain information indicating that the HSU stops occurred without
reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.
33.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that HSU and/or MCSO allegedly
conducts pretextual stops motivated by racial bias and/or that the MCSO/HSU stops are the
result
of a policy
targeting a protected group.
In doing so, please identify the specific
MCSO/HSU policy that allegedly directs and/or encourages the targeting of a protected group to which you refer on page 7 of your December 15,2011 letter.
34.
which the DOJ relies and claims
to
allegedly support your contention that the typical
characteristic of HSU's enforcement efforts is the targeting and harassment of Latino drivers rather than the effective enforcement of immigration law and an element of MCSO's alleged overall pattern of discrimination against Latinos in Maricopa County.
35.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO immigration enforcement
practices are allegedly unconstitutional and are allegedly harming innocent Latinos. In doing so,
please provide each and every witness account that the DOJ claims to support the statistical data
2732833.1
that the DOJ has yet to provide that supports the DOJ's contention that the MCSO's immigration
enforcement is unconstitutional and harms innocent Latinos. In addition, please identifu each
and every individual by name and contact information that provided a "witness account" and/or
interview which supposedly supports this contention.
36.
37
Please provide the identity of the individual 'oA.A." to whom you refer on
pageT of your December 15,2011 letter.
Please provide the identity of the individual
"8.8." to whom you refer on
page
7 of your December 15, 2011 letter. Please indicate whether the reference to "4.4.'s
home" is a typo in the paragraph presenting the allegations of B.B. Please see page 7, second
bullet point, of the December 15,2011 letter.
38.
whieh the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSOos crime suppression
operations adversely impact Latinos.
39.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat the MCSO's crime suppression
operations use "vast numbers of personnel for many hours." In doing so, please identify the
source and/or basis of that conclusion.
40. 41.
Please identify the MCSO lieutenant whom the DOJ contends to have
o'round-ups of illegal aliens." allegedly referred to crime suppression operations as Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly encourages its
deputies to ma.ke high volume pretextual traffic stops in targeted locations.
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON
l HOCHULI,
P.L.C.
42.
\Please provide the identity
of each and every Latino whom the DOJ
claims to have interviewed who were arrested or detained without cause as a consequence of a
crime suppression operation and whom the DOJ claims to have been legally present in the
United States. In doing so, please provide the contact information for each interviewee, as well
as any document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten) regarding each

interview.
43.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO Criminal Employment
Squad (CES) deputies allegedly routinely raid businesses in a manner that harms innocent Latino
workers. In doing so, please identiff each and every "raid" to which you allude, including the
date and location of each "taid," the business affected and each Latino worker who claims to
have been harmed.
44.
handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly makes use of
unverified tips and/or constituent complaints about the presence of Latinos that are infected with bias against Latino pesons, but allegedly contain no credible information concerning criminal
activity or immigration violations, in selecting sites for immigration enforcement operations. In

doing so, please identify each and every alleged practice of making use of unverified tips and/or constituent complaints has had a disparate and adverse impact on Maricopa County's Latino
residents.
45.
Please provide a copy of the letter to which you refer
in bullet point 1 on
page 8 of the December 15,2011 letter described as "a letter in August 2008 expressing dismay
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON
& HOCHULI, P.L.C.
that the employees of a Sun City McDonald's did not speak English and suggesting that Sheriff
Arpaio should 'check this out' and 'check out Sun City."'
46. V/ith regard to the immediately above mentioned "letter in

2008...," please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings
August
(recorded,
of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

an
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO conductecl
immigration operation in Sun City two weeks after this letter, in response to this letter. Please indicate the exact date upon which this "immigration operation
in Sun City"
occurred and
whether this alleged operation specifically targeted the referenced Sun City McDonald's. In
doing so, please make sure that you provide a copy of the letter which purports to contain the
note of Sheriff Arpaio.
47.
Please provide a copy
of the "letter in May 2008 complaining that police
had not stopped day laborers in Mesa 'in order to determine whether these day laborers are here
under legitimate circumstances"' although the writer of the letter "believe[d] that they were in
the country
illegally." In doing
so, please make sure that you provide a copy of the letter which
purports to contain the handwritten marks/writing of Sheriff Arpaio'
48.
Please provide the second May 2008 to which you refer on page 8 which
purportedly states 'lthat Mesa needed 'a sweep...terribly' and accusing specific Latino members
oillegals."' In doing of MCSO and the Mesa Police Department of negligence in pursuing
please provide a copy of that letter that purports to contain the direction
so,
of Sheriff Arpaio to
write a thank you letter written, as well as his purported handwritten note. In addition, please
provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten),
affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims
to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly conducted crime suppression operations in
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON
6,{.
HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Mesa on June 26-27,2008, and on July 14,2008 based on the May 2008 letters referenced on
page 8 of your December 15,2011 letter.
49.
handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings
of any kind, and any and all evidence
upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that there is a proximate causal
connection the MCSO's alleged prioritization of immigration enforcement that the DOJ claims to
have compromised the MCSO's ability to secure the safety and security of Maricopa County residents and the apparent rise
to violent crime rtes in Maricopa County as compared
to
similarly situated jurisdictions. In doing so, please identify each and every similarly situated
jurisdiction to which you refer and their violent crime rates from 2008 to the present.
B.
50.
Discriminatory Language Access Jail Practices

handwitten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO, through its correctional
officers, supervisory staff, and command staff implements language access practices thathave a discriminatory impact on Latinos
51.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence.upon
which the DOJ relieq and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's language
access
practices fall short of what is required and disproportionately harm Latinos in a number of ways.
In doing so, please identiff each and every requirement to which you allude.
52.
w.hich the DOJ relies and olaims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO officers have refused to
2732833.1
January Page 1
4,2012
accept forms completed by LEP inmates in Spanish, including tank orders and grievance forms.
In doing so, please identifi' each and every officer who allegedly had refused to accept tank
andior grievance forms, the source of this allegation, the facility in which each refusal occurred,
as
well
as the date upon
which refusal occurred.
53.
Please identify the detention officer
by name, rank, and facility in which
the detention officer allegedly stated "this is America. You have to
fill
[your tank order] out in
English." In addition, please identify each and every detention officer who allegedly confirmed
that comments like these were made by fellow officers, as well as the name of these "fellow officers."
54.
Please identify each and every one of the four MCSO detention officers by
name, rank, and facility
if known who stated that they do not accept inmate requests written in
Spanish, as well as the single detention officer who allegedly stated that she returns tank orders submitted to her in Spanish and instructs the inmate to obtain an English translation. In doing so, please indicate the facts and circumstances under which each alleged refusal to accept inmate
requests occurred.
55.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO personnel allegedly make
Latino LEP inmates sign important forms written in English without the aid of appropriate
language assistance. In doing so, please identify each and every inmate whom you claim was
told to sign important forms in English without the aid of appropriate language assistance.
56.
Please identify each and every witness who re.ported that MCSO officials
allegedly pressure Latino LEP inmates
to sign English
language voluntary return forms by
yelling at them, routinely failing to advise them of their rights, and confining them in
uncomfi-rrta-blv eolel- eells '--J -
for extended periods of time. ln addition to identif-ving each witness,
2732833.1
please provide any document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten,
or
typewritten),
affidavits, writings of any kind and any and all evidence which allegedly demonstrates that these alleged instances
in which MCSO offrcials
pressrue Latino LEP inmates
to sign
English
language voluntary return forms by yelling at them, routinely failing to advise them of their rights, and confining them in uncomfortably cold cells for extended periods of time.
57.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention offrcers
allegedly punish, directly and indirectly, Latino LEP inmates for their inability
to fully
understand or fluently speak English. In doing so, please describe each and every form of direct
and indirect punishment allegedly levied.
58.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the inability of one Latino LEP
inmate to understand a command given in English can result in the confinement (lock down) of an entire house or pod and that these "lock downs" are sometimes in effect for as long as 72
hours. In doing so, please identify and describe each and every instance, with specificity, in
which lock downs occurred due to inability of an LEP inmate to understand a command given in
English.
59.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that a Latino LEP inmate's inability to
understand a detention officer's English language instructions has resulted
in the detention
officer sending the inmate into disciplinary segregation, to which your letter refers to as the
'hnle
" In dnino so nlease identifv each anrl everv LEP inmate who has been sent to
'---"--J - J
2732833.1
disciplinary segregation based on an inability to understand an English language instruction of

detention officer and describe the circumstances of each incident.
60.
Please identify each and every Latino LEP inmate who reported that they
had never received a copy of the inmate rules and regulations, or did not receive a copy of the
rules and regulations in a language they can comprehend.
6L
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO allegedly discriminates
against Latino LEP inmates by failing to provide them with equal access to a range of services,
opportunities, and benefits available to other inmates. In doing so, please indicate each and every service, opportunity, and benefit of which LEP inmates have claimed to be deprived due to
alleged discrimination. In addition, please identiff each and every Latino LEP inmate who claims to have been deprived of services, opportunities and benefits due to discrimination,
as
well as the facts and circumstances of each alleged deprivation of services, opportunities,
benefits.
and
62.
handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO detention offtcers have
denied requests for new clothes or sheets when items are soiled because the inmates made the
request in Spanish. In doing so, please identify each inmate who made such requests, the relative
date upon which each request was made, the facility
in which each request was made, the
detention officers who allegedly denied the request, and the circumstances
denial.
of
each alleged
63.
tlL'vwv.,/) __ ___J
hanrhriffarr nr frnerriffen\ affidawifs rrifinos of anv kind- and anv and all evidence uon
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that one Latino LEP inmate attempted to use a fellow inmate as an interpreter to explain that her sheets were soiled, that the detention officer refused the request, insisting that the inmate had to make the request herself in English'
In doing so, please identiff the Latino LEP inmate, the facility in which this alleged incident
occurred, the detention offrcer who allegedly refused the request and insisted that the inmate had
to make the request in English herself, and the circumstances of each alleged request.
64.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates are frequently denied access to basic information about programs and services as most announcements are allegedly made in English only, including announcements about recreation and the collection of grievances. In doing so, please provide specific examples, including the identities of each Latino
LEP inmate who were denied access to basic information about programs and
services,
recreation andlor the collection of grievances due to announcements being made in English only, as well as the facility in which each denial occurred, and the circumstances
denial.
of each alleged
65.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings
of any kind, and any and all evidence
upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates have been
denied the opportunity to serve in trustee-type positions. In doing so, please identify each Latino
LEP inmate who claims to have been denied the opportunity to serve in a trustee-type position,
as well as the specific facility in which this denial occurred, and the circumstances
alleged denial.
of
each
66.
hqndrxrifren or fwnerxritfen\ affidavifs- writinss of anv kind. and anv and all evidence upon r-'|r'^---"/,
2732833.t
JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates are denied
access to important activities, including access
to a program that enables inmates to obtain early
release by performing community service. In doing so, please identiff each and every Latino
inmate who was denied such access to important activities, including access to a program that enables inmates
to obtain early release by performing community service, as well as each
"important activity" that Latino LEP inmates arelwere denied, and the circumstances for each
alleged denial.
C.
67,
Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Bias

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that a pervasive culture of
discriminatory bias against Latinos and MCSO that reaches the highest levels of the agency
exists.
68.
Please provide each and every e-mail to which you refer on page 10
of
your December 15, 2011 letter that demean and express derision for Latinos to fellow command
staff members, deputies, posse volunteers, often using County e-mails. In addition,
please
provide any other instance in which non-County e-mail accounts were used for such e-mails.
Please do not publicize any e-mail account
in a response to this request. However, please
indicate
if you
have obtained e-mails from private e-mail aocounts and the circumstances under
which you obtained them.
69.
Please provide
a copy of the e-mail referred to on page 11 of your
December 15, 2011 letter that allegedly mocks individuals
of Mexican national origin
by
including as an attachment a faux driver license issued to an individual caricatured to be

Mexic.an a:rd designafeel as originating from
"Mexifornia," with
a driver class of
"illegal alien."
2732833.1
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page20
70.
Please provide the e-mail referred to on page 11 of your December 15,
2011 letter that supposedly contains two pictures purporting to illustrate the difference between
"Indian yoga" and "Mexican yoga," contrasting a picture of a man in a yoga pose and an
apparently inebriated man prone on the ground.
71.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that in MCSO jails, detention officers
direct racial slurs at Latino inmates. In doing so, please Latino inmate involved in each alleged racial slur incident.
identif the detention officer
and the
72.
handwrigen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any. and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that detention officers also insult or ignore Latino inmates when they attempt to communicate
in Spanish. In doing so, please
identiff each detention officer and inmate involved in each incident to which you allude, the
facility in which each alleged incident happened, and the date of each alleged incident.
73. 74.
Please
identi$ the detention officer who allegedly confirmed that offtcers
on her shift frequently tell Latino LEP inmates to speak in English. Please identify each and every detention officer who observed hostility
towards Latino LEP inmates, such as swearing at Latino inmates, swearing at Latino inmates in
Spanish, and using slurs when referring
to Latino persons. In doing so, please identify the

as
facility in which each alleged incident occurred,

officer involved.
well as each Latino LEP inmate and detention
75.
..,hich the DOJ relies and c.laims
to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers call
2732833.t
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON
&
HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page2l Latinos "wetbacks," "Mexican bitches," "fucking Mexicans," and "stupid Mexicans" when
either talking among themselves or addressing Latino inmates. In doing so, please identify the
facility in which these alleged instances occured, as well as the Latino LEP inmate
detention officer involved.
and
76.
handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio's own actions have allegedly help nurture MCSO's cultural bias.
77.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio allegedly
frequently distributes racially charged constituent letters, annotating letters with handwritten
notes that appear to endorse the content of the letter, circulating the letters to others on the command staff, and/or saving the letters in his personal
file. In doing so, please
provide each
and every racially charged constituent letter to which you refer on page 11 of your December 15,
2011 letter.
78.
Please provide the letter referenced on page 11
of your December
15,
2011 correspondence described as a letter asking Sheriff Arpaio to do a "round up" at 29th Street and Greenway in Phoenix and supposedly justified the requested police action by asserting that
"if
you have dark skin, then you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of Mexican
illegals who are here
illegally." In addition, please provide
each and every fact, document,
report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and
any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff
Arpaio and/or any other MCSO command staff used this letter as a basis to initiate law
2732833.1
January 4,2012 Page22
enforcement operations, specifically identifying the law enforcement operation stemming from this letter, if applicable.
D. 79.
Departures From Policing and Correctional Standards and

Procedures
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO has allegedly adopted and maintained deficient policies and procedures that depart from policing and correctional
standards and lead to violations of constitutional and federal
rights. In doing so, please identify
each and every deficient poticy and procedure that the MCSO has adopted and maintained that
departs from policing and correctional standards and lead to violations
of constitutional and
federal rights. In addition, please identify each and every policing and correctional standards to
which you refer. Furthermore, please identify each and every violation of constitutional and
federal rights that you puport to have occurred due to the adoption and maintenance of deficient
policies and procedures that depart from policing and correctional standards, including the identification
of
each violation
of
constitutional and federal rights, the individual whose
constitutional and federal rights were violated, and the offending MCSO officer(s) who
committed the violation.
80.
handwritten, or typewritten), afflrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims
to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's
oversight and
accountability, training and non-biased policing, and policies for deputy conduct substantiated a
departure from generally acceptedpolicing practices. In doing so, please indicate each and every
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.
policy for deputy conduct that substantially departs from the generally accepted policing
standards, as well as each generally accepted policing standard to which you refer.
81.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's practices are often most
egregiously deficient where they directly relate to MCSO's immigration enforcement program.
82.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's supervisors have made a
variety of statements undervaluing the usefulness of statistics and data collection for effective
law enforcement. In doing so, please identify each standard policing practice throughout the
country to which you refer that contrasts the alleged positions of MCSO supervisors.
83.
handwifien, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO cannot directly track
the ethnicity of a stopped driver in a traffic stop. In doing so, please provide any and all DOJ policies, correspondence, rules, regulations and any case law which requires law enforcement to
track the ethnicity of any drivers stopped in routine traffrc stops.
84.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO is unable to properly
monitor its deputy's traffic work or identiff officers engaged in racial profiling because MCSO
does not require deputies on patrol to keep a log of their activities, but instead only requires them
to enter a highly limited amount of data into the Computer Aided Dispatch system and to
nrndrrce recnrds nnlv for their c.ifafions and arrests'-' - "'J
2732833.l
January
4,2012
Page24
85.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that in the Maricopa County Jails,
MCSO has no reliable practice of documenting which inmates are LEP, leaving detention
officers to guess at the language needs of the inmates.
86.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has allegedly failed to put
in place meaningful oversight and accountability structures.
87.
handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrale thaf when inmates file grievances
against detention officers, it is common practice for the detention officer named in the compliant
to resolve the grievance by pressuring the inmate to sign a release, resulting in no further review
of the complained-of activity. In doing so, please identify each and every inmate and offtcer
involved in each and every instance that the DOJ has revealed the use of such a practice.
88.
handwritten, or typewritten), aff,rdavits, writings
of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO operates its HSU and
CES units despite egregious deviations from policing norms. In doing so, please identify and
describe each policing nonn from which the MCSO's HSU and CES units egregiously deviate.
89.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has provided deputies and
+haIJQTTanrlf-FSrrnifcuifhlittlcinfhcrrawnfnnlicwsnidance frainins-oroversisht... __ _ ____e --_-_____e, lrv ruv
2732833.1
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON
&
HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page25
90.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has failed to meet its LEP
obligations under Title VI, the regulations implemented in Title VI or the standards that MCSO set for itself in its position statement. In doing so, please identify each and every incident in
which you claim detention officers refused to accept written requests by inmates in Spanish, the
circumstances under which each refusal allegedly occurred, and the officer(s) who allegedly
failed to use or rely upon a foreign language skills roster, and each and every type of instance
and specific instance in which officers rely on inmates to provide other inmates with language
assistance.
gL
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that detention officers failed to use an available telephonic interpretation service or to request bilingual colleagues to assist them in communicating with LEP inmates. In doing so, please provide the circumstances upon which
each alleged failure to use an available telephonic interpretation service or to request bilingual
colleagues to assist
in
communicating with LEP inmates occurred, as well as the detention
offrcers allegedly involved in these instances, the facility in which each alleged failure occurred
and the date of each alleged failure.
E.
Retaliatory Actions
92.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrute that MCSO command staff and
J^---:^^ L^-.^ ^ll^-^ 1-, ^--^-^l :- ^ --+-l;^+:-uPutrs lrav aarrurJ lli1'Ll III l ^^#a vr PrrvLrvw vl lvL4ll4Lu PcrLlrrl ^- ^-^^+i^^^f o-aincf rutYuu4r 4euor i-rli.rilralc ,trhn uv vvuv qre
2732833.t
January 4,2012
JONES, SKELTON
6l HOCHULI,
P.L.C.
Page26
exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. In doing so, please identify the command
staff and deputies involved and each instance of retaliation against individuals for exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. Please also identifu each and every individual who
claims that the MCSO has retaliated against him or her for exercising his or her First
Amendment right to free speech.
93.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio and other
command staff have directed MCSO deputies to silence individuals who have publicly spoken
out and participated in protected demonstrations against the policies and practices of MCSO, including its immigration policies. In doing so, please identify the command staff who directed MCSO deputies to silence individuals in this manner, as well as the deputies who allegedly
silenced individuals who have publicly.spoken out and participated in protected demonstrations
against the MCSO and its policies and practices, including immigration policies.
94.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO command staff and
deputies have arrested individuals without cause, filed meritless complaints against political
adversaries
of Sheriff Arpaio and initiated unfounded civil lawsuits and investigations
against
individuals critical of MCSO policies and practices. This request seeks information in addition to the references to Deputy Chief Hendershott contained in your December 15,2011 letter.
95.
Please identify the individual referred
to as "C.C." to whom you refer on
page 13 of your December 15, 2011 correspondence. In addition, please provide the series of approving messagps on a social nefworking site that Sheriff Arpaio allegedly posted with regard
ta'(C I " cnrl his cffcsfc
2732833.1
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page27
96.
handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratefhatMcsO deputies retaliated against members of the Maricopa Citizens
for Safety and Accountability (MCSA) fr being highly
critical of what they call the MCSO's discriminatory treatment of Latinos. In doing so, please
indicate what you believe to have precipitated the December 2008 arrests of MCSA members at
meetings of the County Board of Supervisors for criminal trespassing andlor disorderly conduct by the MCSO, detailing the detailed factual basis for that belief'
97.
Please identify each and every MCSO official, besides the former Chief
Deputy David Hendershott, who filed in his or her official capacity, unfounded complaints with
the Arizona State Bar against attomeys alleging ethical violations against individuals who made
public statements critical of MCSO jail policies, investigatory tactics, and./or police practices, or
otherwise.
98.
whichthe DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO officials, besides former
Chief Deputy David Hendershott, acting in his or her official capacity, filed complaints with the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who made critical public comments
about MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio or had rendered decisions detrimental to MCSO's interests.
99.
handwien, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate lhat the arrests and harassment
undertaken by MCSO had been authorized at the highest levels of the agency and constituted a pattern of retaliatory actions intended to silence MCSO's critics.
2732833.1
JONES, SKELTON {. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
F.
Additional Areas of Serious Concern
We realize that the DOJ had identif,red three additional areas of concern for which it has yet to issue any formal pattern or practice finding and await the conclusion of the DOJ's investigation regarding these three areas (i.e., alleged use of excessive force against Latinos, alleged reduction of policing services to the Latino community, ffid alleged gender and/or natind origin bias by failing to adequately investigate sex crimes). However, in the interest of disclosure and to attain the common goal of ensuring thal the MCSO operates efficiently, effectively, and constitutionally, we have the following requests with regard to the information contained in your December 15,201.1 correspondence addressing these additional areas.
100. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO deputies, in multiple
instances, have allegedly used excessive force. In doing so, please indicate the alleged victim
of
the excessive force, the officers involved, the circumstances under which the alleged excessive force occurred, the involved MCSO deputies, and the date of each alleged occurrence.
101.
Please
identiff the individual to whom you refer
as "E.E.," the exact date
of the incident involving "E.E.," and the deputies involved, if known'
I02.
which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that an absence of trust in the
Maricopa County Sheriffls Office allegedly exists and has substantially compromised effective policing by limiting the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes and speak to the
police about criminal activity. In doing so, please identiff each and every individual with whom you spoke and the information each individual provided to you to substantiate this contention.
103. Please provide
the identities of the MCSO deputies that you interviewed
who allegedly admitted that the immigration enforcement program has adversely affected their ability to obtain information and cooperation from the County's Latinos.
2732833.1
January
4,2012
JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
Page29
I04. Please identify the deputy to whom you refer who allegedly informed the
DOJ that the MCSO's "aggressive" immigration interdiction efforts create a "wall of distrust"
that divides the Latino community and MCSO.
105. Please identify the deputy to whom you refer on page 16 of your
December 15,2011 correspondence who stated he was told by his supervisors to expect that he
would encounter hostility from people who believed they were being stopped because of their
ethnicity. In addition, identiff the supervisor who allegedly told this deputy that he would
encounter such hostility.
106.
Please identify the MCSO deputy
to whom you refer on page 16 of your
December 15, 2011 correspondence who 'obemoaned" the impact
of MCSO's
immigration-
related operations, stressing that they 'oaffectour ability to work in a community that hates you'"
***
Mr. Perez, surely you understand that without the documents and information requested immediately above, it will be impossible for Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO and us to
evluate the DOJ's findings in this instance. The DOJ asked for transparency from the MCSO and we provided it by complying with the DOJ's requests. We now simply request reciprocal transparency and reasonable cooperation from the DOJ.
Thank you for your anticipated prompt response. V/e look forward to working with you to resolve this matter amicably, short of protracted, expensive and truly avoidable litigation.
illiam R. Jones John T. Masterson

Joseph J. Popolizio
For the Firm JJP/jan
cc:
- -
Avner Shaniro -------'t-
2732833.r

Arpaio's Letter To The DOJ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arpaio's Letter To The DOJ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrrrnu

B. Jorurs, Jn. TETEPfloNE: (602) 263.1i14

IIIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUE

Fnx: (602) 200-7801

SUrTE 800 PHoEilrx, AnrzoNA 85012

PH0NE: (6021 263-1700 trx: (6021 651-75SS

(002) 263-7330 Fnx: (602) 200-7846

TETEPHoNE: (602) 263-1 741

Fnx: (6021 200.7876

AND WASHTNGT0N, D.C.

U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV 1 O- 1 0878-PHX-GMS

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C. in your December 15, 20ll

During yorrr press conference and

Exhibit I attached hereto for abriefswnmary of MCSO's cooperation with this

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

The Desired "Constructive DialogFe"

See "Profiling Proof Must be Public." The Arizona Republic 30 December

201l: 86. Print.

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

Id. at163. t Id. atl4s.

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

For the Firm

Brief Summary of the MCSO's Cooperation with the DOJ's Investieation

Shortly after the commencement

R. Jorurs. Jn. TETEPHoNE: (6021 263.1714

2901 lllosrH CENT8AI AvEttluE

Fnx: (602) 200-7801

PHoENrx, ARrzoNA 85012 PH0NE: (602) 263.1700

tnx: (602) 651-75S9

TETEPH0NE: (602) 263.1

ANo WAsHrNcToN, D.C.

U.S. v. MCSO, et al. CV1O.I0878-PHX-GMS

Requests for Facts and Information

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

V/ith regard to the DOJ's findings relating to MCSO's alleged discriminatory

similarly situated non-Latino drivers.

Please describe, with particularity, each "individual account" regarding

January 4,2012 Page 3

JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P.L.C.

identify and describe in detail the specific instances in which the

Please also explain

in detail any alleged causal connection between the

MCSO's crime suppression activity and a particular complaint(s), if any.

Discriminatorv Jail Practices

JONES, SKELTON 6'L I-IOCHULI, P.L.C.

Findinss Pertainine to Both Police and Jail Practices

who criticize police

practices, including practices relating

discriminatory treatment of Latinos, by allegedly subjecting its critics to retaliatory detentions

of each individual to whom the DOJ alludes

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.

please provide each instance and o'other

of alleged retaliatory detention,

arrest without cause, unfounded

baseless complaints" to which the DOJ

number, and the identity

of each individual who has claimed to be the subject of

jail practices by failing to

operate in accordance with basic

such areas as training, supervision, and

MCSO." f,esal Findinss Under Section 14141& Title VI and its

JONES, SKELTON l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.