article: On December 12, 2007, a group of plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the County of Maricopa and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), as well as Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of Latino persons who have been or will be stopped, detained, interrogated, or searched by the Sheriff or his agents in moving or parked vehicles in Maricopa County. They alleged claims under the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) and Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) to the U.S. Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the Arizona state constitution. The plaintiffs were represented by private pro bono attorneys, the American Civil Liberties Union (both local and national), and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. The United States Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division and local U.S. Attorneys) appeared in the case as amicus, explaining that they had a sharp interest in the matter because of its separate civil rights lawsuit against the County, United States v. Maricopa County, <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12282">PN-AZ-0001</a> in this Clearinghouse. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the defendants, claiming that defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of racial profiling and racially or ethnically discriminatory treatment in "enforcing" federal immigration laws against Latino persons without regard for actual citizenship or immigration status. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants have launched a series of "crime suppression sweeps" to target Latino persons for investigation of immigration status, using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially motivated questioning, searches, and/or baseless arrests. These sweeps include a volunteer "posse" that help to carry out defendants' policies and practices. Defendants had claimed authority under a limited agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, plaintiffs allege that the ICE agreement prohibits these practices, because the agreement only allows for questioning of immigration status once someone is suspected of violating a state or federal law more severe than a traffic offense. The plaintiffs further allege that defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond these "sweeps" to include widespread, everyday targeting and mistreatment of drivers and passengers in Maricopa County who appear to be Latino. The plaintiffs allege that Latino drivers and passengers are stopped at higher rates, treated more intrusively, and detained longer than similarly situated Caucasian drivers and passengers (even within the same vehicle). The plaintiffs also allege that defendants have set up a "hotline" for "tips" on illegal immigrants, which they allege invites individuals to equate race with immigration status. Finally, the plaintiffs allege a failure to train personnel and volunteers adequately and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent infringement of plaintiffs' rights. Allegedly, the Sheriff made many public statements about his intent to "go after illegals" and said publicly that physical appearance was basis to question someone about their immigration status. On July 15, 2009, the court (Judge Mary H. Murgia) granted the defendants' motion for recusal. The defendants claimed that only the day after Judge Murgia ruled against them did they become aware that Judge Murgia's (identical twin) sister was the President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); they argued that accordingly, Judge Murgia must recuse herself. On the one hand, the court found that the motion was untimely, that the defendants had not shown any evidence of the court's bias, and that her sister's position was not enough to compel recusal. On the other, however, the court found that NCLR's "Stop the Hate" online campaign, which contains articles that are highly disparaging of these defendants and which takes a strong stand on disputed legal and factual matters in this case (and which contain pictures of the judge's identical twin sister) might lead the public to question Judge Murgia's impartiality, and that she should recuse herself in this close call. Melendres v. Arpaio, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65069, 2009 WL 2132693 (D. Ariz. July 15, 2009). The case was reassigned to Judge G. Murray Snow. On August 13, 2009, Judge Snow denied the County's motion to stay proceedings pending DOJ investigations. Melendres v. Maricopa County, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75364, 2009 WL 2515618 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2009). On October 13, 2009, the court approved a joint motion and stipulation of plaintiffs and defendant Maricopa County to dismiss Maricopa County without prejudice. On December 23, 2011, the court issued an order denying summary judgment and sending the case to trial in large part. Based on the few statistical sheets that were available, the court held that the finder of fact may draw the following inferences from the statistic sheets that MCSO shredded: that they would have suggested officers involved in special operations did not follow a "zero tolerance" policy requiring them to stop all traffic offenders; that they would have included a significantly higher number of arrests in the categories "Illegal Alien turned over to ICE/LEAR" and/or "Suspected Illegal Alien arrested on state charges" than records documenting ordinary patrol activity. Based on the recovered emails, the court found that the finder of fact could draw the following inferences from emails that MCSO irretrievably purged: that MCSO maintained a file of citizen complaints making requests for special operations; that MCSO conducted operations in areas named in the complaints; and that at least some of the citizen communications complained about "Mexicans," "day laborers," or "illegal immigrants" but did not provide a description of any criminal activity. Melendres v. Arpaio, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148187 (D. Ariz. Dec. 23, 2011). On the same day, the court certified the class of "all Latino persons who, since January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned, or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona." The court also enjoined MCSO and its officers from detaining any person only because they believe or know that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. Ortega-Melendres v. Arpaio, 836 F. Supp. 2d 959 (D. Ariz. 2011). The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office filed an interlocutory appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Later, on September 25, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District court's order. De Jesus Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. Ariz. 2012). In the meantime, the matter proceeded to a bench trial, held in July and August 2012. On May 24, 2013, Judge Snow issued a 142-page decision finding for the plaintiffs. The court found the plaintiffs entitled to injunctive relief to remedy the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations caused by the Sheriff's Office past and continuing operations, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding the MCSO from: <li>detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization; <li>following or enforcing its LEAR policy against any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County; <li>using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant; <li>using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without authorization; <li>detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law; <li>detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle in Maricopa County for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present; and<li>detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.</li>The defendant appealed this decision, along with the denial of their initial motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13-16285). The parties negotiated a consent decree to ensure the Maricopa Sheriff's Office complied with the court's findings of facts for the plaintiffs. On October 2, 2013, after hearing the terms on which the parties could and could not agree, the court (Judge Snow) issued an order making the previous injunctions permanent and establishing the methods for compliance. The order required the Sheriff's Office to create a unit to aid in compliance and a system for identifying problematic behavior and provided for an independent monitor to ensure compliance. It further demanded that all of the Sheriff's policies and procedures conform to the US and AZ constitutions and laws, that the monitor review any of the Sheriff's immigration-related policies and practices, that all officers receive training on nondiscriminatory policing, that the Sheriffs create an accountable system for documenting traffic stops including dash-cam recording, that all complaints are brought forward and addressed, and that the Sheriffs get involved in the community to rebuild public trust. The Sheriffs appealed this order as well (Docket No. 13-17238), and it was consolidated with their previous appeal. On April 4, and October 10, 2014, the court issued orders amending the permanent injunction, giving the Monitor, rather than the Sheriff's Office, the community outreach responsibility to serve as a liaison between the public and the Sheriff's Office. The second of the orders amended the injunction to allow for body-mounted cameras as opposed to dash mounted cameras, for the purpose of recording traffic stops. On September 11, 2014, the court (Judge Snow) awarded attorneys' fees and costs to the plaintiffs, as the prevailing party in a civil rights case, totaling $4,439,241.66. The court retained jurisdiction of this action for all purposes until such time as the defendants have achieved full and effective Compliance and maintained such compliance for no less than three years. On February 12, 2015, Judge Snow entered an order for an evidentiary hearing to address whether MCSO committed contempt of the court. This order was in response to a 2013 video released of Sheriff Arpaio telling his officers to disregard the court's order requiring them to track the race and ethnicity of the individuals they stopped. Further videos were retrieved showing officers had detained people against the court's earlier orders and that these officers had been unlawfully taking detainees possessions. On April 15, 2015, Justice John Wallace for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded Judge Snow's May 24, 2013 permanent injunction. He held that the the named plaintiffs were adequate class representatives and the district court had not abused its discretion. He found the requirement within the permanent injunction that monitors consider "disciplinary outcomes for any violation of department policy" and assess whether deputies should be subject to "civil suits or criminal charges for off-duty conduct" was overbroad. 784 F.3d 1254 The United States moved to intervene based on the "general public importance" of the matter. Judge Snow granted the motion on August 13, 2015. The United States's intervenor complaint cited violations of 42 USC § 14141(b) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It sought equitable and injunctive relief. On August 26, 2015, Judge Snow issued an order amending the supplemental permanent injunction. In response to the defendants' appeal of the initial supplemental permanent injunction, the Ninth Circuit affirmed all provisions except for those allowing the Monitor to consider MCSO's discipline for "any violations of department policy" and whether any deputies were repeatedly party to any "complaints, civil suits, or criminal charges, including for off-duty conduct." After the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Judge Snow narrowed the Monitor's considerations to only include violations pursuant to this particular case and injunction. Meanwhile, in a related case filed by the Department of Justice in 2012, Judge Silver for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, settled certain issues but required the DOJ to pursue further relief within this case. (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12017">PN-AZ-0001 in this Clearinghouse</a>). The parties then litigated evidentiary issues for several months. On May 13, 2016, Judge Snow issued a Finding of Fact holding defendants in civil contempt of the court and setting a hearing date for May 31, 2016. 2016 WL 2783715. Based on the Finding of Fact, the court found that the defendants' had failed to implement the court's preliminary injunction, failed to disclose thousands of relevant discovery items, and deliberately violated court orders. These actions harmed the plaintiff class, impeded litigation, and led to a trial that did not adequately address plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Judge Snow therefore issued an amended supplemental permanent injunction on July 22, 2016. The Injunction required MCSO to investigate all allegations of employee misconduct related to the issues in this case; implement misconduct related training, develop a civilian complaint intake, implement transparency measures, and ensure document preservation and production. It further demanded that all policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and other relevant materials remain subject to review and comment by the compliance Monitor implemented in the first supplemental permanent injunction. 2016 WL 3965949. In November 2016, Paul Penzone defeated Joe Arpaio in the Arizona election for Sheriff. On January 13, 2017, the court replaced Penzone as the named defendant for the case. Prior to the change in defendant, Judge Snow issued an order on August 19, 2016 referring Sheriff Arpaio to a randomly selected judge for criminal proceedings to determine whether he should be held in criminal contempt for:<li>Violation of the court's December 23, 2011, preliminary injunction; <li>failure to disclose all relevant materials for the investigation; and <li>his intentional failure to preserve and produce required records as directed in the court's April 23, 2015, order.</li>The criminal proceedings continued separately to this case. On July 31, 2017, District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued an order finding Sheriff Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt. 2017 WL 3268180. The court found that Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction was clear and spelled out that detaining persons past the time sufficient to conduct a criminal investigation was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and that Sheriff Arpaio had to cease the practice immediately. Further, the court found that Sheriff Arpaio had the requisite knowledge of the order and that, based on public statements demonstrating flagrant disregard for the order, he had willfully violated the preliminary injunction order. On August 14, 2017, Sheriff Arpaio filed a motion for a new trial, and/or that the verdict be vacated, arguing that he was wrongfully denied a trial by jury. On that same date, he also filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal. After President Trump issued an Executive grant of clemency to Joe Arpaio on August 28, 2017, he filed an additional motion to vacate the verdict. Subsequently, the court dismissed the first two motions with prejudice, reserving only the motion to vacate the verdict. On October 19, 2017, Judge Bolton denied Sheriff Arpaio's motion to vacate the verdict, insofar as it sought relief beyond dismissal with prejudice. 2017 WL 4839072. The court held that although the presidential pardon spared Sheriff Arpaio from any punishment that otherwise might have been imposed, it did not "revise the historical facts" of the case. Thus, the judgment of conviction was maintained. Sheriff Arpaio appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit. On April 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an order appointing a special prosecutor to defend the district court’s decision. United States v. Arpaio, 887 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2018). The role of the “special prosecutor” under the order was limited to providing briefing and argument to the merits panel. A judge of the appeals court sua sponte called for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the order appointing a special prosecutor. Rehearing en banc was denied. On October 25, 2018, the Court stayed briefing in this case to allow the Solicitor General to consider whether to file certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. On January 1, 2019, the Solicitor General determined that the government would not seek certiorari in the Supreme Court and the appeals court reinstated a briefing schedule. Thus, the appeal in the contempt proceedings is still pending. Meanwhile, in the district court, the parties continued litigating over legal fees. Although they went to mediation, this was unsuccessful. On March 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit ordered Maricopa County to pay $400,395.55 to the plaintiffs to cover legal fees. On March 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit ordered that an employee of Maricopa County pay the plaintiffs $52,877.42 in additional attorneys' fees for work performed on a motion to dismiss the employee's appeal of the district court's order finding that he had committed civil contempt for violating the injunction. In 2017, the Monitor noted that MCSO had completed the delivery of misconduct investigations training. As of November 2018, the Monitor noted steady improvement in the quality of internal investigations, particularly since completion of the training. On May 24, 2018, MCSO published its Third Traffic Stop Annual Report. The Monitor noted issues with the underlying data due to a lack of quality control procedures with MCSO’s contracted vendor responsible for the various analyses. MCSO has since contracted with a new vendor. Despite the Monitor's concerns with the data, the Report found that the issue of racial differences in post-stop outcomes is systemic and cannot be attributed only to a small number of deputies. The Report did, however, identify several deputies which were outliers when compared to their geographic peers and MCSO is working to address those outliers. The Monitor continues to oversee the MCSO's compliance with the multiple supplemental injunctive relief orders entered. The plaintiffs have filed a supplemental motion for attorneys' fees incurred from June 1, 2016, through August 31, 2017, in the total amount of $1,237,192.10. On April 12th, 2019 the court granted plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of $747,836.24. In mid-June of 2019, the Independent Investigator, assigned in the Second Amended Second Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order, announced that he had completed his duties and that he was no longer needed to investigate MCSO affairs. In January of 2020 he submitted a letter to the judge charting the work he did and notifying him that he would be available to the court if he was required to testify. The Maricopa County Sheriff continues to submit reports to the court and the case is ongoing as of June 8th, 2020.
summary: On December 12, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Arizona against the County of Maricopa and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. They claimed that defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and practice of racial profiling and racially or ethnically discriminatory treatment against Latino persons in an attempt to find people who are in the United States illegally. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond unlawful "sweeps" to include widespread, everyday targeting and mistreatment of drivers and passengers in Maricopa County who appear to be Latino. The Court certified the class as "all Latino persons who, since January, 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona." In May 2013, the Court found the MCSO in violation of the Constitution, and entered a permanent injunction forbidding racial profiling. The Court made the previous injunctions permanent and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Court retains jurisdiction until the Sheriff has fully complied with the Court's order, pending the result of the Sheriff's appeal. In July 2016 the Court found that the defendants' had failed to comply with many components of the injunction. Judge Snow therefore issued an Amended Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction that required MCSO to investigate all allegations of employee misconduct related to the issues in this case; implement misconduct related training, develop a civilian complaint intake, implement transparency measures, and ensure document preservation and production. On August 19, 2016 the Court ordered Sheriff Arpaio to a randomly-selected judge for criminal proceedings to determine whether he should be held in criminal contempt for failure to comply with court orders. On July 31, 2017, the Court found Sheriff Arpaio guilty of criminal contempt. Sheriff Arpaio's appeal of the District Court's denial of his motion to vacate the verdict was denied by the 9th Circuit in February of 2020. In November 2016, Sheriff Arpaio was replaced by Sheriff Penzone. In 2019, the Independent Investigator that was assigned in the Second Amended Second Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order resigned, saying that he was no longer needed to investigate MSCO affairs. The case continues as the Court Monitor continues to oversee the MCSO's compliance with the multiple supplemental injunctive relief orders entered.