0104-mcso-DOJ-letter

Document Sample
0104-mcso-DOJ-letter Powered By Docstoc
					Wrrrnu   B. Jorurs, Jn.                                                          zgfl   I   IIIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUE
TETEPfloNE: (602) 263.1i14

                                           QIJ|ëffaN&
                                                                                                       SUrTE 800
Fnx: (602) 200-7801                                                                     PHoEilrx, AnrzoNA 85012
E.MAil.: wJoNEs@JsHFrRM.coM


Jorru T. MlsrrRsoru
                                           \JT IHoCHULI,              P.L.C.
                                                                                            PH0NE: (6021 263-1700
                                                                                              trx: (6021 651-75SS
                                                                                                WWW.JSHFIßM.COM

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

Dear Mr. Perez:

               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. Arpøio ønd the MCSO øre certøìnly
ínterested in pørticipating in constructive diølogue, but constructíve díalogue cøn only occur if
the DOJ provìdes the fø.cts and ínformøtion 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
                   JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page2

                 During yorrr press conference and    in your December 15, 20ll         letter, you
emphasized the strained relations between the MCSO and its     former counsel and the DOJ. That
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
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.



tPleøse see   Exhibit I attached hereto for abriefswnmary of MCSO's cooperation with this
investigation.


2729738.t
                      JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page 3

                   The Desired "Constructive DialogFe"

                 We, too, preÍer to resolve thís matter wíthout litþatìon, but wíll not cower at the
threøt of lítigatÍon, 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
DOJ    would neither make public the statistical study upon which the DOJ relies, nor provide it to
the MCSO unless it was õompelled to do so in "expårt 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
                          JONES, SKELTON ô'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January        4,2012
Page 4

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 reliablé .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
Letter of Findings ("LOF"), as opposed to an Investigative Report ("IR"), as defined in the
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, thøt we stønd reødy to litigate thß 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
VI  and Other Non-Discrimination Statutes (1998), p. 99.
o
  Id. at 1oo,
5
    Id. atl4g-47.
6
    See   Id. at   l5l.
7
  Id. at163.
t
  Id. atl4s.


2729',t38.1
                       JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January       4,2012
Page 5

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

               Shortly after the commencement       of  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.

              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.
                                                                                      2901 lllosrH CENT8AI AvEttluE
                                                                                                         SUITE 800
TETEPHoNE: (6021 263.1714
Fnx: (602) 200-7801
E-MÀrr: wJoNEs@JsHHRM.coM
                                            QHåËtr¿,N&P.L.C.
                                            L-/I T
                                                                                          PHoENrx, ARrzoNA 85012
                                                                                           PH0NE: (602) 263.1700

                                                           HOCHULI,                           tnx: (602) 651-75S9
                                                                                                WWW.JSHFIRM.Cf}M
Jorru T. Mnsrrnsoru
TETEPHoNE:    (602) 263-7330
tnx:   (602) 200-7846
E.MAII.: JMASTEBSON@JSHFIRM,COM


JoSEPH   J. Popouzro'
TETEPH0NE: (602) 263.1   i41
t¡x:   (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:        U.S. v. MCSO, et al.
                                   CV1O.I0878-PHX-GMS

Dear Mr. Perez'.

                                          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
                      JONES, SKELTON ôL HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
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
                'We
interviews.           would also request any statements provided to the DOJ, either recorded or



2732833.1
                  JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 3


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.      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 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
                         JONES, SKELTON 6'L I-IOCHULI, P.L.C.
    January     4,2012
    Page 4


                     8.       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 MCSO pressures Latino LEP

    inmates to sign voluntary return forms that implicate constitutional and statutory rights without

    language assistance.

                     9.       Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

    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.   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 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
                     JONES, SKELTON ôL HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page 5


                  12.     In addition,    please provide each instance        of alleged retaliatory detention,
                                                              o'other
arrest without cause, unfounded        civil lawsuit,   and             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
                                                                                                        oobaseless
number, and the identity        of each individual who has claimed to be the subject of
complaints," including the date, facts, and circumstances of each alleged baseless complaint.

                  13.     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 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                in   such areas as training, supervision, and

accountability systems.

                  14.      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 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,      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 discriminates
---:,--L r ^+:^^^ L-. ^.^-^-:--      j- .^^.1:^^             +L-+ ',i^l^+o +1"o E^'rol Drnfanfìnn   ñlorrce   nf the
                                                 -*^^+i^^^
¿lBArIrSt L¿lLlllu¡i UJi çllËiXËllrË lrr PUU\/S Pr4vrrvçù    lll4l Yrvr4rw ruw LYqqr ¡ rvçvvlrvr¡



2732833.1
                     JONES, SKELTON ôl. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page 6


Fourteenth Amendment       to the United    States Constitution, Section   l4I4I, Title VI   and the

Department' s Title VI implementing regulations.

                 16.    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 MCSO allegedly discriminates

against its Latino LEP inmates on the basis of their national origin in violation of Title     VI   and

the Department's Title VI implementing regulations'

                 17.    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 MCSO allegedly engages in               a


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.    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 MCSO allegedly engages in               a


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
                 ß.     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
                    JONES, SKELTON 6l" HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
PageT


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.     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,

201   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           a

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
                  JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 8


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.      Discriminatory Police Practices

                26.     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 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.     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 emphasizes

its immigration enforcement efforts without following basic policing protocols and does not
implement any meaningful safeguards against discriminatory police practices'                In doing so,
prgilsç :t^-^+:c-. çaçll L^^:^ yurrvrué --^+^^^1. +]^ot t1".a l¡ffrCl-ì ollpcerllr¡ feils fn fnllnrv
--7---- luçrrtrry ^^^L uiaJlv -^1:^:-^
                                        PluLuvurù Lrr4r rrrv ¡vrvuv
                                                                                                       Tn




2732833.1
                  JONES, SKELTON 6L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 9


addition, please identiff each and every safeguard against discriminatory police practices that the

MCSO allegedly has failed to implement.

               28.      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 has allegedly engaged

in a series of practices that have adversely and disproportionately impacted Latinos.

               29.      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 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.      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'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.      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 HSU deputies allegedly stop,

detain and/or arrest Latino drivers without adequate cause. In doing so, please identify each and


2732833.1
                  JONES, SKELTON ô{- HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 10


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.     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 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.      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 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.     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 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.     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 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
                    JONES, SKELTON ôL HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 11


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.      Please provide the identity of the individual 'oA.A." to whom you refer on

pageT of your December 15,2011 letter.

               37   .   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.      Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

whieh the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSOos crime suppression

operations adversely impact Latinos.

               39.      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 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.     Please identify the MCSO lieutenant whom the DOJ contends to have
                                                      o'round-ups of illegal aliens."
allegedly referred to crime suppression operations as

                41.     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 MCSO allegedly encourages its

deputies to ma.ke high volume pretextual traffic stops in targeted locations.


2732833.1
                 JONES, SKELTON                ôl HOCHULI,            P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 12


              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.    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 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.    Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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 peïsons, 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.
January 4,2012
Page 13


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               August

2008...," 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 conductecl                 an

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                                  so,

please provide a copy of that letter that purports to contain the direction     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.
January 4,2012
Page 14


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.     Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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 râtes 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.      Discriminatory Language Access Jail Practices

               50.     Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwïitten, 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.     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 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.    Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

w.hich the DOJ relies and olaims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO officers have refused to


2732833.1
                      JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page 1


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.     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 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
                  JONES, SKELTON ôL HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 16


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.   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 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.   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 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.   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 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
'Éhnle   " In dnino so nlease identifv each anrl everv LEP inmate who has been sent to
                                 '---"--J            -   - J




2732833.1
                  JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 17


disciplinary segregation based on an inability to understand an English language instruction of      a


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       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 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,        and

benefits.

               62.       Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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            of   each alleged

denial.

                63.       Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

hanrh¡riffarr nr fr¡ner¡¡riffen\ affidawifs r¡¡rifinos of anv kind- and anv and all evidence uþon
                      tlL'vwv.,/)                     __   ___J




2732833.1
                   JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 18


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.   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 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       of each alleged
denial.

                  65.   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 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       of   each

alleged denial.

                  66.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

hqndrx¡rifren or fwnerx¡ritfen\ affidavifs- writinss of anv kind. and anv and all evidence upon
                   r-'|r'^---"/,




2732833.t
                      JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page 19


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.    Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Bias

                     67,   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 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
                      JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
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.       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 in MCSO jails, detention officers

direct racial slurs at Latino inmates. In doing so, please         identif the detention officer   and the

Latino inmate involved in each alleged racial slur incident.

                 72.       Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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.       Please   identi$ the detention officer who allegedly confirmed that offtcers

on her shift frequently tell Latino LEP inmates to speak in English.

                 74.       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
facility in which each alleged incident occurred,      as   well as each Latino LEP inmate and detention

officer involved.

                     75.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon
.¡.,hich the DOJ relies and c.laims       to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers call


2732833.t
                     JONES, SKELTON             &   HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
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 occurïed, as well as the Latino LEP inmate           and

detention officer involved.

                 76.   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 Sheriff Arpaio's own actions have

allegedly help nurture MCSO's cultural bias.

                 77.   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 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
                    JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page22


enforcement operations, specifically identifying the law enforcement operation stemming from

this letter, if applicable.


                 D.           Departures From Policing and Correctional Standards and
                              Procedures


                 79.      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 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 pu¡port 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.     Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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.
January 4,2072
Page23


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.     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 MCSO's practices are often most

egregiously deficient where they directly relate to MCSO's immigration enforcement program.

                82.     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 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.     Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwïifien, 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.     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 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
                     JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page24


                 85.   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 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.   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 MCSO has allegedly failed to put

in place meaningful oversight and accountability structures.

                 87.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

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.   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 MCSO has provided deputies and
+haIJQTTanrlf-FSrrnifcu¡ifhlittlcinfhcrr¡awnfnnlicwsnidance frainins-oroversisht...
lr¡v ¡ruv                                                   --_-_____e, __ _ ____e




2732833.1
                      JONES, SKELTON                   &    HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page25


                 90.      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 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       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 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.      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 demonstrute that MCSO command staff and
J^---¿:^^ L^-.^ ^ll^-^ Ã1-, ^--^-^l   :- ^
                                             PcrLlçrrl ^- ^-^^+i^^^f
                                                                     --+-l;^+:--
uçPutrçs lravç aarrçËçurJ çllËi1'ËçLl III úl ^^#aø vr PrúrvLrvw vl lvL4ll4Lu¡ó
                                                                                   o-aincf ¡¡rutY¡uu4¡r
                                                                                   4Éeu¡or i-rli.ri¡lr¡alc    vvuv qre
                                                                                                             ,trhn uv



2732833.t
                   JONES, SKELTON                6l HOCHULI,             P.L.C.
January 4,2012
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.    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 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.     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 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
                     JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
Page27


                 96.   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 demonstratefhatMcsO deputies retaliated against

members of the Maricopa Citizens       for Safety and Accountability (MCSA) för 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.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

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.   Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwïiÍen, 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 ô{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January 4,2012
Page28

               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
natiãnd 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,
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 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.   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 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
                     JONES, SKELTON ô'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.
January     4,2012
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
evãluate 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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:1/13/2012
language:
pages:38