Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 57
`
`Julie A. Pace (#014585)
`BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
`3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2518
`Telephone: 602-798-5477
`Fax: 602-998-3251]
`Email: seldend@ballardspahr.com
`pacej@ballardspahr.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`poorOoCO“IDAASeWLY
`
`MANUELde JESUS ORTEGA
`MELENDRES,on behalf of himself and
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Vv.
`
`JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,in his individual
`and official capacity as Sheriff of
`Maricopa County, Arizona, JOHN
`DOES 1[-10 in their individual and
`official capacities as sheriffs deputies
`for the County of Maricopa, and
`MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT (Class Action)
`
`1. Violation of Equal Protection under the
`U.S. Constitution
`2. Violation of Unreasonable Search and
`Seizure under U.S. Constitution
`3. Violation of Due Process under U.S.
`Constitution
`4. Violation of Right to Travel under U.S.
`Constitution
`5. Violation of Due Process under Arizona
`Constitution
`6. Violation of Right to Privacy under
`Arizona Constitution
`7. Violation of Race Discrimination in
`Federally Funded Programs
`
`Plaintiff, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres (“Plaintiff’ or “Mr.
`
`Ortega”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, by and through his
`
`attorneys, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP, alleges upon information and
`
`belief, except as to his own actions, the investigation of his counsel, and the facts that
`
`are a matter of public record, as follows:
`
`DMEAST #9915788 vi
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-3595
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 57
`
`oOfeSNDHOHBRWHNe
`
`pamperphehhhCOsONOORReHRNOOOOOaeeeaOO
`BbBRBRBNDNDRDRDNDBRDwetter
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`In this civil rights case, Plaintiff seeks to remedy and stop illegal,
`1.
`discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against
`Hispanic persons in Maricopa County, Arizona. Plaintiff also seeks damages for his
`
`unlawful arrest and detention.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims
`
`pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`This Court has authority to grant declaratory,
`
`injunctive, and monetary relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201, and 2202, and to
`
`award attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2412.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Venueis properin this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a Hispanic male,
`
`is a
`
`citizen and resident of Sonora, Mexico. Atthe time ofthe events that are the subject
`
`of this lawsuit, Mr. Ortega possessed a valid Visa issued by the United States
`
`Department of State and a valid Permit issued by the United States Department of
`
`Homeland Security. Mr. Ortega is a retired school teacher.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision of the
`
`State of Arizona that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and
`
`belief, Maricopa County receives federal funds.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio (“Arpaio”) was at all relevant times the
`
`Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, acting within the scope of his employment as
`
`Sheriff. He is responsible for, among other things, the implementation of the policies
`
`and/or practices of Maricopa County,
`
`including but not
`
`limited to,
`
`the control,
`
`supervision, operation and administration of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants John Does 1-10 wereat all times relevant to this complaint,
`
`employed, duly appointed, and acting as sworn officers of the Maricopa County
`
`DMEAST #9915788 vi
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 57
`
`Sheriff's Office, and wereat all times acting under color of law and pursuant to the
`policies and/or usages of the County of Maricopa and the State of Arizona. Said
`Defendants are sued individually and in their official capacities as sheriff's deputies.
`Defendants are hereinafter referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
`
`FACTS
`
`The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Manuel de Jesus Ortega
`
`8.
`
`On September 6, 2007, Mr. Ortega legally entered the United States at
`
`the border station in Nogales, Arizona.
`
`Mr. Ortega possesses a United States Visa that is valid through August
`9.
`23, 2016, and possessed a Permit
`issued by the United States Department of
`
`Homeland Security that was valid through November1, 2007.
`
`10.
`
`On or about September 26, 2007, at 6:15 a.m., Mr. Ortega was a
`
`passenger in a vehicle in Cave Creek, Arizona, that was stopped by officers from the
`
`Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The vehicle was being driven by a Caucasian
`
`male, but the passengers, including Mr. Ortega, were Hispanic men.
`
`11.
`
`The officers told the driver that he was being stopped for speeding, but
`
`they did not give him a citation or take him into custody.
`
`12.
`
`The officers looked at Mr. Ortegasitting in the vehicle and asked him to
`
`produce identification.
`
`13. Mr. Ortega showed them the following documents that he had in his
`
`wallet:
`
`(a) his United States Visa, which has his photograph and fingerprint onit; (b)
`
`his Mexican Federal Voter Registration card, which also has his photograph and
`
`fingerprint on it; and (c) a copy of the Permit he was given by the United States
`
`Department of Homeland Security with a stamp that shows his admission to the
`
`United States was valid through November1, 2007.
`
`14.
`
`Although Mr. Ortega produced identification establishing his legal
`
`status in the United States, the officers told him to exit the vehicle, which he did.
`
`oOfFSNHNOHBRDWHRee
`
`NMBoBOOBOBRDBRDBDBDBetteppmpmthhakOo~DNA&WYHOKKCOOOCOHDHDRWHBPWLF&
`
`DMEAST#9915788 vi
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-3400PAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`OoHsSNDBOABPWDKN
`
`
`
`prwmehfrmromBRImt
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 4 of 57
`
`the officers pushed Mr. Ortega against a
`After exiting the vehicle,
`15.
`Sheriff's Department vehicle and patted him down overhis entire body in a rough
`manner.
`
`The Sheriffs officers then took everything out of Mr. Ortega’ pockets,
`16.
`including his wallet and a small bottle of lotion that Mr. Ortega occasionally applies
`to his face so that his skin does not becomedry.
`
`17.
`
`The Sheriff's officers, upon removal of the small bottle of lotion from
`
`Mr. Ortega’s pocket, asked Mr. Ortega in a confrontational manner “How manytimes
`
`a week to you jack off?”
`
`18. Mr. Ortega was then handcuffed with his arms behind his back. Mr.
`
`Ortega had a broken wrist years ago that did not heal correctly. His wrist has a visible
`deformity and causes him pain. Mr. Ortega asked the Sheriff’s officers to please be
`careful in handcuffing him, but they handled him roughly. The officers kept Mr.
`Ortega’ hands handcuffed behind his back for approximately 40 minutes.
`
`19.
`
`The officers then put Mr. Ortega in the back of a Sheriff's vehicle and
`
`took him to the Sheriff's office in Cave Creek.
`
`20.
`
`At the Sheriff's office they placed Mr. Ortega in a holding cell where
`
`they left him for four hours.
`
`21.
`
`Throughout the time that Mr. Ortega was seized from the vehicle, patted
`
`down, handcuffed, transported to the Sheriff's office, placed in the holding cell and
`
`left to remain in the holdingcell, no one from the Sheriff's office explained anything
`
`to him, and no one offered to get a Spanish speaking officer or translator to assist in
`
`communicating with him.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`attorney.
`
`The officers did not advise Mr. Ortega of his Mirandarights.
`
`The officers did not tell Mr. Ortega that he had the right to speak to an
`
`24.
`
`The officers did not tell Mr. Ortega anything about whether he could or
`
`should make any statements to them.
`
`DMEAST #9915788 vi
`
`

`

`29.—After the Sheriffs officers left Mr. Ortega in the jail in Cave Creek for
`
`OoOO“SPONUnBRWONmet
`
`BROBOBROBRDBRDRDRBmehpndmkkakmhtoOonNDWA&WOWN-—&DS©©DTDRA&WHwe&OD
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 5 of 57
`
`25.
`
`The officers did not give Mr. Ortega any opportunity to make a phone
`
`call.
`
`The officers did not tell Mr. Ortega what crime he allegedly committed,
`26.
`or if he was being charged with any crime.
`
`27.
`
`The officers did not say anything about what might happen to Mr.
`
`Ortega.
`
`28.
`
`Theofficers did not give Mr. Ortega any documents regarding his arrest
`
`or their putting him in jail.
`
`four hours, they placed him in handcuffs again, with his arms behind his back and
`
`took him to a Hummervehicle. A driver and a driver’s companion then drove him to
`
`downtown Phoenix. The driver of that vehicle spoke Spanish. Mr. Ortega explained
`
`that his wrist was quite painful and asked if he could be handcuffed with his hands in
`
`front of him rather than with his hands pulled behind his back. The driver said that he
`
`could not do that.
`
`30.
`
`The officers drove Mr. Ortega to the U.S. Immigration and Customs
`
`Enforcement (“ICE”) office on Central Avenue in downtown Phoenix. They took
`
`him inside and removed the handcuffs. Mr. Ortega’ hands were swollen, and he was
`
`in pain.
`
`31.
`
`At the ICE office Mr. Ortega was placed in a holding cell and left
`
`unattended for more than one hour.
`
`32.
`
`After waiting in the cell, Mr. Ortega was taken to an ICEofficial. He
`
`did not identify himself or give Mr. Ortega any identification. The Sheriff's officers
`whoarrested Mr. Ortega were also present.
`
`33.
`
`The ICE officer asked Mr. Ortega how he entered the United States.
`
`Mr. Ortega told him that he came through legally at the port of entry at Nogales,
`
`Arizona. The ICE officer asked for Mr. Ortega’s documents.
`
`DMEAST#9915788 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 6 of 57
`
`34.
`The Sheriff's officers gave Mr. Ortega’s Visa and other documents to
`the ICE official. The ICE official took look a quick look at the documents and said,
`“These documents are good.”
`
`35.
`
`The ICE official told Mr. Ortega he wasfree to leave.
`
`36. Mr. Ortega was in custody from 6:15 a.m. until about 3:00 p.m.
`
`37.
`
`During the approximately nine hours that he was in custody, Mr. Ortega
`
`was never: (a) given any water, (b) given any food, (c) told his rights, or (d) given the
`
`name ofany ofthe officers involved.
`
`38. Mr. Ortega also was never given any paperwork, other than a case
`
`number, with any information about his: (a) being stopped, (b) being taken into
`
`custody by the Sheriffs officers, (c) being held in jail by the Sheriff's officers, (d)
`
`being transferred to the ICE office, (e) being held in jail at the ICE office, or (f) his
`
`being released from custody.
`
`39.
`
`After being released in downtown Phoenix, Mr. Ortega had to makehis
`
`own way from downtown Phoenix to Cave Creek.
`
`40.
`
`Because of Mr. Ortega’ experience with the Maricopa County Sheriff's
`
`officers he is now afraid.
`
`41. Mr. Ortega is frightened to walk on the street or be seen in public in
`
`Maricopa County because he fears that the Sheriffs officers will come and arrest him
`
`again becausehe is Hispanic and does not speak English.
`
`42. Mr. Ortega is afraid that the Sheriff's officers will hurt him physically if
`
`they pick him up again.
`
`43. Mr. Ortega is afraid that he will be thrown in jail without any
`
`explanation, without any rights, and without any opportunity to get help even though
`
`the federal government of the United States has issued a Visa to him that gives him
`
`permission to be here.
`
`GoSO“SSDNOABeY]He
`
`NMBwBRBRDRDDDNDBRDBRDheeheemkpkmkommchrhaossDWOnSPWDNHN—OC0)CONNDHABWCWKO&©
`
`DMEAST #9915788 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENTX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-3400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 7 of 57
`
`Defendants’ Limited Authority to Perform Immigration Enforcement Functions
`
`Pursuant to Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
`44.
`U.S.C. §1357(g), the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is
`authorized to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to
`train and permit designated officers to perform certain immigration enforcement
`
`functions. Under such a Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), the state and local
`
`officers are given training and supervised by appropriate ICE officers.
`
`45.
`
`According to ICE,“[t]he 287(g) program is designed to enable state and
`
`local
`
`law enforcement personnel, incidental to_a lawful arrest_and during the
`
`
`
`course of their normal duties, to question and detain individuals for potential
`
`removal
`
`from the United States,
`
`if_these individuals are identified as
`
`
`undocumentedillegal aliens and they are suspected of committing a state crime.”
`
`Fact Sheet, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (September 24,
`
`2007), available at http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/factsheet287gprogover.htm
`
`(emphasis added)( a true copy of the Fact Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit A).
`
`46.
`
`ICE also has madeit clearthat, “[t]he 287(g) program is not designed to
`
`allow state and local agencies to perform random street operations.” The 287(g)
`
`program also, “is not designed to impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day
`
`laborer activities.”
`
`Indeed, “ICE representatives repeatedly emphasized that it is
`
`designed to identify individuals for potential removal, who pose_a threat to public
`
`safety, as_a result of an arrest and/or conviction for state crimes.” /d. (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`47.
`
`ICE guidelines specifically direct that, “Police can only use 287(g)
`
`authority when people are taken into custody as a result of violating state or local
`
`criminal law. Police cannot randomly ask for a person’s immigration status or
`
`conduct immigration raids,”
`
`and officers may only, “use their authority when
`
`Oo “SDOCeBSWRNe
`
`NBBwKRKDBRDBRBRDDRemfamhmakkoraoOosjDWWOBhWHOKKOfCODOHNHDRABPWHNO—&OC
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`dealing with someone whois suspected of a state crime that is more thanatraffic
`
`offense.” /d. (emphasis added).
`
`DMEAST #9915788 v1
`
`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 8 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 8 of 57
`
`In or around January 2007, Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio
`48.
`entered into an MOA with ICE which authorized up to a maximumof 160 nominated,
`trained, andcertified personnel of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to perform
`certain immigration enforcement functions. A true copy of the MOA is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`Part I of the MOA provides that, “the exercise of the immigration
`49.
`enforcement authority granted under
`this MOA to participating LEA [Law
`
`Enforcement Agency] personnel shall occur only as provided in this MOA.” Part V
`
`of the MOAspecifically provides that the immigration enforcement authority granted
`
`OoCOSDOTBPWHHN
`
`to Defendantsis, “subject to the limitations contained in this MOA.”
`
`50.
`
`Part XV of the MOAprovidesas follows:
`
`Participating LEA personnel who perform certain federal
`immigration enforcement
`functions are bound by all
`federal civil rights statutes and regulations, including the
`U.S. Department of Justice “Guidance Regarding The Use
`Of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies” dated
`June 2003.
`
`Participating LEA personnel will provide an opportunity
`for subjects with limited English language proficiency to
`request an interpreter.
`Qualified
`foreign language
`interpreters will be provided by the LEA as needed.
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`51.
`
`The U.S. Department of Justice Guidance Regarding the Use of Race
`
`By Federal Law Enforcement (“DOJ Guidance”) to which Defendants are bound
`
`specifically states that, “’[rlacial profiling’ at its core concerns the invidious use of
`
`race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other
`
`law
`
`enforcement
`
`investigative procedures,”
`
`and that,
`
`“[rJacial profiling in law
`
`enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective.” A true copy of the DOJ
`
`Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`52.|The DOJ Guidance directs that, “[i]n making routine or spontaneous law
`
`enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal
`
`law enforcement
`
`DMEAST #9915788v1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`BRPDQBaBOBROBDODBRBRpakkeelmechmhfhCOosONORReBDNRUNOOOONaYLLKOU
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 9 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 9 of 57
`
`OoCO“SOHNOCBmNe
`
`MOwRHNSHKOOKDBRDRORQwmetreeeektehpeedOOosDNRnH&WwWNHK&CS©CO~DBABPWDNOee
`
`officers may not userace or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on
`race and ethnicity in a specific suspect description.”
`
`53.
`
`Defendants’ authority to enforce federal immigration law is constrained
`
`and limited by the U.S. Constitution, federal law and the MOA.
`
`54.
`
`Notwithstanding those profound limits on Defendants’
`
`authority,
`
`Defendants, acting under and pursuant to Arpaio’s policies, practices, philosophies
`
`and directives, have grossly exceeded the limits of their lawful authority and in so
`
`doing they have egregiously trampled the constitutional and civil rights of Ortega and
`
`countless other Hispanic and Latino members of the Maricopa County community.
`
`55.
`
`By their actions described above and as set forth in more detail below,
`
`Defendants have devised and implemented an invidious and unconstitutional custom,
`
`policy and practice of racial profiling toward Hispanic and Latino persons in
`
`Maricopa County.
`
`Defendants’ Racial Profiling and Abuse of Authority
`
`56.
`
`In or about July, 2007, Arpaio established a dedicated hotline for people
`
`to call
`
`the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office with information about alleged
`
`unauthorized aliens. Arpaio and Maricopa County do not have legal authority under
`
`federal law or the MOAto establish and operate that hotline.
`
`57.
`
`Arpaio established and implemented a “Triple I” Unit
`
`(HMlegal
`
`Immigration and Interdiction) to investigate tips received on his illegal immigration
`
`hotline. Arpaio and Maricopa County do not have legal authority under federal law or
`
`the MOAto operate the Triple I Unit.
`
`58.
`
`On September 27, 2007, Arpaio ordered his Triple I Unit to go to Cave
`
`Creek, Arizona, to investigate and arrest illegal immigrants. Acting under color of
`
`law and Arpaio’s orders, several Maricopa County Sheriffs officers detained,
`
`questioned and arrested at least nine Hispanic individuals allegedly because they were
`
`illegal immigrants. Upon information andbelief, those officers did not have probable
`
`cause to believe that any of those detained, questioned or arrested had committed a
`
`DMEAST#9915788v1
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-3400FAX(602)798-3595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 10 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 10 of 57
`
`OoOSNSDNAHeDHNLOe
`
`NONMKNKORQNDRRRDBDeenpkenhthmehmhekCWAABONSFSCwmMAAARONBS
`
`violation of Arizona state law. Those arrested were transported directly to jail, not to
`
`an ICE facility.
`
`59.
`
`On October 4, 2007, Arpaio ordered his Triple I Unit to go to Queen
`
`Creek, Arizona, for an operation similar to that conducted in Cave Creek. Again, at
`
`least 16 Hispanic individuals were detained, questioned and arrested on suspicion of
`
`being illegal immigrants. Upon information andbelief, the arresting officers did not
`
`have probable cause to believe that any of those detained, questioned or arrested had
`
`committed a violation of Arizona state law. Those arrested were transported directly
`
`to jail, not to an ICE facility.
`
`60.
`
`Recently, Arpaio entered into an agreement with the Maricopa County
`
`Attorney’s Office to jointly investigate possible violations of Arizona’s new employer
`
`sanctions law, A.R.S. Section 23-212. According to Arpaio, his Triple I Unit will be
`
`used to enforce that law. Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas sought the
`
`agreement with Arpaio because he has, “a proven track record of enforcing
`
`immigration laws and not caving in to political correctness.” The constitutionality
`
`and validity of Arizona’s new employer sanctions law is the subject of other cases
`
`pending in this court.
`
`61. Ata recent press conference, Arpaio clearly and emphatically outlined
`
`his overzealous, illegal and unconstitutional policies and philosophies. He described
`
`his operation as a “pure program.” One designed, “to go after illegals, not the crime
`
`first.” His practice is to “go after illegals... go after “em and lock ‘em up.” Arpaio
`
`and Maricopa County do not have legal authority under federal law or the MOA to
`
`engage in that conduct.
`
`62.
`
`On December 8, 2007, Sheriff's officers followed, questioned and
`
`detained a Hispanic male in Cave Creek. He was merely walking on the sidewalk.
`
`He was followed by officers in a patrol car. The officers stopped the car, approached
`
`the man and detained him for questioning without probable cause or other lawful
`
`basis... The officers asked him for identification and his social security card. They
`
`DMEAST#9915788 v1
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 11 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 11 of 57
`
`questioned him at length about his citizenship status and his residence. He is a U.S.
`
`citizen.
`
`63.
`
`For the past several weeks, Arpaio and his officers have detained,
`
`questioned and arrested Hispanic protesters demonstrating in the vicinity of Pruitt’s
`Home Furnishings in east Phoenix. Upon information and belief,
`the arresting
`officers did not have probable causeto believe that any of those detained, questioned
`
`or arrested had committed a violation of Arizonastate law.
`
`64.
`
`Ina blatantaffront to the Pruitt store protesters First Amendmentrights,
`
`Arpaio has announcedthat he will continue to harass and arrest those protesters until
`
`and unless they stop their protests.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants’ conduct violates the Constitution and laws of the United
`
`States, the MOA and the DOJ Guidance. Assuch,it must be stopped.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`66.
`
`This is a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of Plaintiff and all other similarly
`situated individuals.
`
`67.
`
`The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent consists of, “all individuals
`
`of Hispanic descent who reside, are employed, attend school and travel within the
`
`borders of Maricopa County, Arizona.” This class is so numerousthat joinder ofall
`
`membersis impracticable.
`
`68.
`
`There are questions of law and fact commonto all members ofthe class
`
`and all class members have been directly affected by the challenged actions of
`
`Defendants. Each putative class member has been subjected to arbitrary, racially-
`
`discriminatory stops, detention, arrests and/or searches conducted by Defendants.
`
`Each putative class member has been subjected to stops, detentions, interrogations
`
`and/or searches without any reasonable articulable suspicion or probable cause that
`
`such class member had committed a crime or was engaged in criminalactivity.
`
`OoCoSNDSCOBeWYBe
`
`DBDBDRDRDBRekehdOo~sDNOHBPWYNKCOOoOOHSDRAHBeBHNYYKSCS
`
`DMEAST #9915788 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`oOSo“SSDNCASPWDBe
`
`ia)
`
`12
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 12 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 12 of 57
`
`69.
`
`The claims and defenses of the representative plaintiff are typical of the
`
`claims and defensesof the class.
`
`70.
`
`The representative plaintiff will
`
`fairly and adequately protect
`
`the
`
`interests of theclass.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants in this case have taken actions in violation of the class
`
`members’ constitutional rights and/or refused to act in accordance with thoserights,
`
`which are grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final
`
`injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a
`
`whole.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiffs counsel
`
`is competent and experienced in class action
`
`litigation of this type.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`EQUAL PROTECTION
`(Fourteenth Amendment)
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by this reference all allegations of the
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`As an Hispanic and a citizen of a foreign country, Mr. Ortega is a
`
`memberof a protected class.
`
`75.
`
`As Hispanics and citizens of a foreign country,
`
`those individuals
`
`detained, questioned and arrested by Defendants’ Triple I Unit on September 27 and
`
`October 4, are members ofa protected class.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`engaged in profiling of Mr. Ortega and other Hispanic individuals based on their race.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`engaged in profiling of Mr. Ortega and other Hispanic individuals based on their
`
`national origin.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop
`
`and/or detain Mr. Ortega or any of the other Hispanic individuals referred to above.
`
`DMEAST #9915788 vi
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oOfCsDDBCTBB&NORe
`prownemmahmehfeBmWwNNes&
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 13 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 13 of 57
`
`79.
`
`By purposefully stopping and detaining Mr. Ortega because ofhis race
`
`and/or national origin, Defendants deprived Mr. Ortega of the equal protection ofthe
`
`law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
`
`to the United States
`
`Constitution. These actions violated Mr. Ortega’ Fourteenth Amendmentrights and
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1983.
`
`80.
`
`By their conduct described above, Defendants in general, and Arpaio in
`
`particular, have devised and implemented a policy, custom and practice of illegally
`
`detaining and questioning Hispanic individuals solely because of their race and
`
`nationalorigin.
`
`81.
`
`Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause Mr. Ortega
`
`and other similarly situated individuals to suffer tremendous harm and public
`
`humiliation and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are
`
`stopped.
`
`82.
`
`As a direct, proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Mr.
`
`Ortega has suffered and will continue to suffer significant and substantial emotional
`
`and physical injuries.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
`(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)
`
`83.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations of the
`
`preceding paragraphsof this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`84.
`
`Pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
`
`Constitution,
`
`state
`
`and local governments
`
`are prohibited from conducting
`
`unreasonable searches and seizures.
`
`85.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`stopped, seized, searched and arrested Mr. Ortega without probable cause or
`
`reasonable suspicion that he had committed any crime. Such conduct violated the
`
`DMEAST #9915788 v1
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400PAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Oo©SSBOOFSeWHNH=
`
`or SC
`
`11
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 14 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 14 of 57
`
`Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures,
`
`the
`
`Fourteenth Amendment, and 28 U.S.C § 1983.
`
`Upon information and belief, Arpaio and the other Defendants, acting
`86.
`under color of law and in concert with one another, have engaged in a custom,
`
`practice and policy of stopping, seizing, searching and arresting Hispanic individuals
`
`in Maricopa County without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that they had
`
`committed any crimes under Arizonalaw.
`
`87.
`
`Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause Mr. Ortega
`
`and other similarly situated individuals to suffer tremendous harm and_ public
`
`humiliation and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are
`
`stopped.
`
`88.
`
`As a direct, proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Mr.
`
`Ortega has suffered and will continue to suffer significant and substantial emotional
`
`and physicalinjuries.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`DUE PROCESS
`(Fourteenth Amendment)
`
`89.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations of the
`
`preceding paragraphsof this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`90.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`stopped, seized, searched and arrested Mr. Ortega without probable cause or
`
`reasonable suspicion that he had committed any crime.
`
`91.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`unlawfully detained Mr. Ortega without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that
`
`he had committed any crime.
`
`92.
`
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`
`failed to implement and/or follow proper procedures to determine Mr. Ortega’s legal
`
`immigrant status prior to detaining, searching and arresting him.
`
`DMEAST #9915788 v1
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`PHOENIX,ARIZONA85012
`
`
`
`(602)798-5400FAX(602)798-5595
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`BALLARDSPAHRANDREWS&INGERSOLL,LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3300NORTHCENTRALAVENUE,SUITE1800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 15 of 57
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document1 Filed 12/12/07 Page 15 of 57
`
`OoCOssDOA&WDNOee
`
`NMBONDDDRQDDBRDDDBDmmmfmmfhammoCossDRTOB&BWwWNYOSFCOO60COJ)HRABPWYHY&K@D
`
`93.
`Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,
`exceeded and/or abused the authority granted to them under federal law through the
`MOA,the DOJ Guidance and the Section 287(g) program.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants’ wrongful conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the
`
`Fourteenth Amendmentto the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1983 in that
`
`they denied Mr. Ortega and other similarly situated individuals liberty and freedom
`
`without due processof law.
`
`95.
`
`As members of a suspect class, Mr. Ortega and other similarly situated
`
`Hispanic individuals are entitled to be treated fairly, equally and free from
`
`discrimination. Defendants’ wrongful conduct deprived Mr. Ortega and other
`
`similarly situated individuals of substantive due process in violation of the Due
`
`Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentin that those Defendants discriminated
`
`against Mr. Ortega and other similarly situated individuals on the basis of their race
`
`and nationalorigin.
`
`96.
`
`Defendants’ actions have caused and will continue to cause Mr. Ortega
`
`and other similarly situated individuals to suffer tremendous harm and_ public
`
`humiliation and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are
`
`stopped.
`
`97.
`
`As a direct, proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Mr.
`
`Ortega has suffered and will continue to suffer significant and substantial emotional
`
`and physical injuries.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`RIGHT TO TRAVEL
`(Commerce Clause, Article [V and Fourteenth Amendment)
`
`98.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by refer