Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 162
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
`
`FINDINGS OF FACTS
`- AND-
`ORDER SETTING A HEARING FOR
`MAY 31, 2016
`
`
`
`Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
`behalf of himself and all others similarly
`situated; et al.
`
`
`and
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff-Intervenor,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as
`Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`This Court held 21 days of evidentiary hearings in April, September, October, and
`November of 2015. At issue were three different charges of civil contempt raised against
`Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and various other alleged non-party contemnors. Also at issue was
`the relief necessary to compensate the Plaintiff class for the Defendants’ acts of
`misconduct.
`
`The Court ordered the Parties to introduce all fact evidence that would bear on the
`remedies to which the Plaintiffs might be entitled.
`
`From the substantial evidence presented during the hearing and the facts set forth
`in detail below, the Court finds that the Defendants intentionally failed to implement the
`Court’s preliminary injunction in this case, failed to disclose thousands of relevant items
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 162
`
`
`
`of requested discovery they were legally obligated to disclose, and, after the post-trial
`disclosure of additional evidence, deliberately violated court orders and thereby
`prevented a full recovery of relevant evidence in this case.
`
`Defendants also initiated internal investigations designed only to placate
`Plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants did not make a good faith effort to fairly and impartially
`investigate and discipline misconduct or to discover other materials responsive to
`Plaintiffs’ pretrial requests. To escape accountability for their own misconduct, and the
`misconduct of those who had implemented their decisions, Defendants, or their proxies,
`named disciplinary officers who were biased in their favor and had conflicts, Defendants
`remained in control of investigations in which they themselves had conflicts, Defendants
`promulgated special inequitable disciplinary policies pertaining only to Melendres-related
`internal investigations, Defendants delayed investigations so as to justify the imposition
`of lesser or no discipline, Defendants misapplied their own disciplinary policies, and
`Defendants asserted intentional misstatements of fact to their own investigators and to the
`court-appointed Monitor. The Defendants’ unfair, partial, and inequitable application of
`discipline disproportionally damaged members of the Plaintiff class.
`
`Ultimately, few persons were investigated; even fewer were disciplined. The
`discipline imposed was inadequate. The only person who received a suspension—for one
`week—was also granted a raise and a promotion.
`
`When the Court issued an Order to Show Cause and scheduled the evidentiary
`hearing, Defendants again failed to timely produce the evidence they were legally
`obligated to produce. Further, despite at least three applicable disclosure orders and
`despite assurances to the Court that they were disclosing and would continue to
`completely comply with court-ordered disclosure requirements, Defendants intentionally
`withheld documents involving the Plaintiff class. In doing so, they again violated court
`orders, made intentional misstatements of fact to the Monitor about the existence of such
`documents, and made additional intentional misstatements to the Monitor in an attempt to
`justify their concealment.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 162
`
`
`
`In their testimony during the evidentiary hearing, Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
`
`Sheridan made multiple intentional misstatements of fact while under oath.
`
`In short, the Court finds that the Defendants have engaged in multiple acts of
`misconduct, dishonesty, and bad faith with respect to the Plaintiff class and the protection
`of its rights. They have demonstrated a persistent disregard for the orders of this Court,
`as well as an intention to violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their
`conduct as they pertain to their obligations to be fair, “equitable[,] and impartial” with
`respect to the interests of the Plaintiff class.
`
`Sheriff Arpaio is in civil contempt on Counts One, Two, and Three of the Order to
`Show Cause. Chief Deputy Sheridan is in civil contempt on Counts One and Three.
`Retired Chief Sands and Lieutenant Sousa are in civil contempt on Count One.
`The Court has set a hearing for May 31, 2016, in which the Parties will be able to
`
`discuss with the Court the appropriate relief in light of the factual findings below.
`I.
`THE MCSO FAILED TO IMPLEMENT THE COURT’S PRELIMINARY
`INJUNCTION (COUNT ONE OF THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE).
`1.
`On December 1, 2011, with motions for class certification, summary
`judgment, and partial preliminary injunction pending, this Court ordered the Parties to
`provide supplemental briefing on several issues prior to oral argument. (Doc. 477.)1
`2.
`Those issues principally involved whether the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
`Office (MCSO) had the authority to enforce federal civil immigration law. (Doc. 477.)
`3.
`In its supplemental brief, the MCSO acknowledged that it had no authority
`to enforce federal civil immigration law. The MCSO also stated that it had been training
`its officers, especially its Human Smuggling Unit (HSU) officers, to comply with Ninth
`Circuit precedent to that effect. (Doc. 488 at 1–2.)
`4.
`Sheriff Arpaio nevertheless claimed that the MCSO held authority under
`Arizona law to detain persons based only on the reasonable suspicion that the detainees
`
`1 The citations to the record supporting the Court’s factual findings are not
`intended to be exhaustive. “Doc.” refers to the numbered docket entry in the Court’s file.
`“Ex.” refers to an exhibit admitted at trial.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 162
`
`
`
`were in the United States without authorization.
`5.
`However, after the loss of the MCSO’s 287(g) authority, (see Doc. 579), it
`remained the MCSO’s office-wide policy and practice to detain and arrest persons
`believed to be within the United States without authorization, even when no state
`charges could be brought against such persons. (See, e.g., Doc. 1017 at Tr. 160:15–
`162:7; Doc. 1027 at Tr. 711:10–21.)
`6.
`The preliminary injunction, entered shortly thereafter, made it clear that the
`MCSO had no authority under state law to detain persons based solely on their illegal
`presence within the United States. “[T]he fact that a person is unlawfully present,
`without more, does not provide officers with reasonable suspicion that the person is
`currently being smuggled for profit, nor does it provide probable cause that the person
`was at some point in the past smuggled for profit. . . . To the extent that Defendants
`claim that the [Arizona] human smuggling statute, or any Arizona or federal criminal
`law, authorized them to detain people solely on the knowledge, let alone the reasonable
`suspicion, that those people are not authorized to be in the country, they are incorrect as
`a matter of law.” (Ex. 67 at 17.)
`7.
`The preliminary injunction further reaffirmed what the MCSO had already
`admitted: that under the United States Constitution, the MCSO could not “detain[]
`individuals in order to investigate civil violations of federal immigration law.” (Ex. 67
`at 39.) The preliminary injunction further enjoined the MCSO from “detaining any
`person based on actual knowledge, without more, that the person is not a legal resident
`of the United States.”2 (Id.)
`8.
`The prohibitions of the preliminary injunction were not restricted to the
`HSU’s operations, but rather applied to the entire MCSO. (Ex. 67 at 40 (“MCSO and all
`of its officers are hereby enjoined . . . .”) (emphasis added).)
`9.
`After the preliminary injunction was entered, no changes were made to the
`
`2 In affirming the preliminary injunction in September 2012, the Ninth Circuit
`characterized the preliminary injunction as “narrow” and “limited” in scope. Melendres
`v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir. 2012).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 5 of 162
`
`
`
`MCSO’s active enforcement of immigration laws, nor to its policies, practices, or
`operations related to immigration enforcement. The MCSO continued its past practice
`of detaining persons for whom it had no state charges and turning them over to ICE or
`Border Patrol. (Doc. 1021 at Tr. 369:21–371:7, 383:7–10; Doc. 1027 at Tr. 611:7-14,
`761:2-4; see also Ex. 2219 at MELC209788 (“[Sergeant Trowbridge] said nothing at all
`changed about the way they conducted business after the Court order.”), MELC209805
`(“Lt. Sousa said nothing changed about the way his unit approached its work as a result
`of that court order.”).) The MCSO also continued to detain all persons suspected of
`violating human smuggling laws and continued to take them to HSU offices for further
`interrogation to determine whether they could be charged with any state crime. If the
`MCSO could not substantiate state charges, then attempts were made to transfer custody
`of such persons to federal agencies involved with immigration enforcement.
`10.
`The MCSO continued these unconstitutional practices until this Court
`entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in May 2013.
`
`
`A.
`
`Individual Liability for Failure to Implement the Court’s Preliminary
`Injunction.
`
`
`1.
`
`Sheriff Arpaio Knowingly and Intentionally Failed to Implement the
`Preliminary Injunction.
`11.
`Sheriff Arpaio has conceded that he is liable for civil contempt for violating
`the terms of the preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, whether his contempt of the
`injunction was knowing and intentional is relevant to the appropriate remedy. The Court
`thus finds that Arpaio is in civil contempt and additionally finds that Arpaio’s contempt
`was both knowing and intentional.
`a.
`Sheriff Arpaio Knew That the Preliminary Injunction Existed
`and Was in Force.
`12. On December 23, 2011, the date that the preliminary injunction issued, Mr.
`Casey, the MCSO’s outside legal counsel, informed Sheriff Arpaio of its issuance and
`terms. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1639–43.)
`13.
`Sheriff Arpaio further acknowledged that he may have read about the
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 6 of 162
`
`
`
`preliminary injunction in The Arizona Republic. (Doc. 1051 at Tr. 478.)
`14.
`In fact, immediately upon its issuance, the preliminary injunction was
`featured in a front-page story in The Arizona Republic. The article specifically noted
`that “[t]he judge’s ruling also bars all sheriff’s officers from arresting any person ‘only
`on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present
`within the United States.’”3 JJ Hensley, “Judge Curbs MCSO Tactics,” The Arizona
`Republic, Dec. 24, 2011, at A1. Moreover, the article quotes Mr. Casey as stating that
`he had been instructed by Sheriff Arpaio to appeal the preliminary injunction but
`nevertheless to have MCSO officers obey it in the meantime. Id.
`15. At the hearing on this matter, Sheriff Arpaio reaffirmed his previous
`testimony that he was aware of the preliminary injunction when it came out. (Doc. 1051
`at Tr. 477–78.)4 Arpaio further testified that at all times from the date of its entry until
`his testimony in the evidentiary hearing, he knew that the preliminary injunction was in
`force and never forgot about it. (Id. at Tr. 480–81.)
`16.
`Sheriff Arpaio was the only person who had the authority to decide whether
`to appeal the preliminary injunction, (Doc. 1051 at Tr. 479–80), and he publicly
`indicated that he would do so. (Doc. 1027 at Tr. 740–41.) On January 4, 2012, Mr.
`Casey emailed attorney Mr. Liddy, Chief Sands, and Chief MacIntyre, noting Arpaio’s
`assertion that the preliminary injunction had no effect on ongoing MCSO operations and
`also noting that he was nevertheless instructed to appeal it. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1656:12–
`1658:7; Ex. 2535 (“The Sheriff called last night . . . . During the call, [the Sheriff]
`indicated that he wanted the Notice of Appeal on file even though the injunctive relief is,
`
`
`3 The Court takes judicial notice that The Arizona Republic published articles
`about this litigation and the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Von Saher v. Norton
`Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Courts may take
`judicial notice of publications introduced to ‘indicate what was in the public realm at the
`time, not whether the contents of those articles were in fact true.’”).
`4 Sheriff Arpaio’s testimony is inconsistent with the statements that he made to
`MCSO Special Investigator Vogel, to whom he indicated that he was not aware of the
`preliminary injunction for months after it issued. (Ex. 2219 at MELC209841,
`MELC209843–45.)
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 7 of 162
`
`
`
`in actual practice, relatively harmless to MCSO field operations.”); see also Ex. 2533 at
`MELC210542.)
`
`b.
`
`Sheriff Arpaio Understood the Meaning of the Preliminary
`Injunction.
`
`1)
`
`Counsel Explained the Preliminary Injunction to Sheriff
`Arpaio.
`17. On December 23, 2011, the date the preliminary injunction issued, Mr.
`Casey immediately told MSCO command staff that they could not turn anyone over to
`the federal authorities. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1639–43.) Sheriff Arpaio responded to Casey
`that the MCSO was not detaining anyone. (Id. at Tr. 1642–43.)
`18.
`Sheriff Arpaio does not deny telling Mr. Casey that he would release
`people if they had no state charges to bring against them. He also testified that he told
`Casey that he saw no reason to detain these individuals since President Obama was going
`to let them go anyway. (Doc. 1458 at Tr. 2542–43.) Arpaio also does not deny telling
`Casey that he would follow Casey’s advice regarding the preliminary injunction. (Id. at
`Tr. 2555-56.)
`19. Although at the hearing Sheriff Arpaio testified that he does not remember
`whether he communicated with Mr. Casey about the preliminary injunction on December
`23, 2011, he acknowledged that he may have had such a conversation. (Doc. 1027 at Tr.
`628.)
`
`20.
`That communication is verified by contemporaneous correspondence. Late
`on the night of December 23, 2011, Mr. Casey emailed his associate James Williams and
`reported that he had communicated the Court’s ruling to Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre,
`and Sheriff Arpaio. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1642–43; Ex. 2534 (“Frankly I am relatively
`pleased. So are Chiefs Sands and MacIntyre. Arpaio is conflicted on how he feels.”).)
`21. Mr. Casey’s
`time sheet
`indicates several personal meetings or
`communications with Sheriff Arpaio in late December 2011 and in January 2012. (Doc.
`1417 at Tr. 1654-55; Ex. 2533 at MELC210539–40.)
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 8 of 162
`
`
`
`22.
`Sheriff Arpaio acknowledges that he may have met with attorneys
`regarding the preliminary injunction during this time period, but he testified that he was
`not “constantly” meeting with them. (Doc. 1027 at Tr. 595.)
`23.
`Sometime shortly after the issuance of the injunction, Mr. Casey testified
`that he developed the “arrest or release” terminology to simplify the meaning of the
`injunction and to assist in explaining it to MCSO personnel. The gist of his instruction
`was that if the deputies detained someone they suspected of being in the United States
`without authorization, they either had to arrest them on a state charge, or they had to
`release them. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1647–48.)
`24.
`Sheriff Arpaio acknowledges that Mr. Casey may have told him that the
`MCSO either needed to arrest those they suspected of being unauthorized immigrants on
`applicable state charges or release them. (Doc. 1458 at Tr. 2539–40.) Arpaio admits that
`Casey never told him that it was acceptable to deliver persons to Border Patrol for whom
`he had no state charges. (Id. at Tr. 2528, 2498:17–2499:11, 2500:14–2501:7.)
`
`2)
`
`Chief MacIntyre Presented the Preliminary Injunction to
`Sheriff Arpaio.
`25. Chief MacIntyre testified that he read the preliminary injunction and fully
`understood it. (Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1877–78; see Ex. 2219 at MELC209815.) He
`understood, for example, that if the MCSO had no probable cause to believe that a state
`crime existed, it could not hold an unauthorized alien for transfer to a federal agency.
`(Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1877–78; Ex. 2219 at MELC209814–16.)
`26. Chief MacIntyre felt that he had an ethical responsibility to help Sheriff
`Arpaio understand the necessary changes he needed to make in the department to be in
`compliance with the preliminary injunction. As a result, he attended a scheduled
`meeting on the first or second Monday of January 2012 at which the MCSO chiefs
`regularly meet with Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan. (Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1878:23–25;
`Ex. 2219 at MELC209814.) He attended that meeting to make sure that Arpaio and
`others heard the words of the preliminary injunction and understood what it said. (Doc.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 9 of 162
`
`
`
`1422 at Tr. 1879.) MacIntyre “told [Sheriff Arpaio] point blank exactly what the
`[preliminary injunction] order says and what the requirements are.” (Ex. 2219 at
`MELC20981; see also Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1880–81.) He explained it twice. (Doc. 1422 at
`Tr. 1880; Ex. 2219 at MELC209815.) He spoke slowly and enunciated. (Doc. 1422 at
`Tr. 1879–81.) Arpaio acknowledged that he heard MacIntyre. (Id. at Tr. 1880:11–12.)
`
`3)
`
`Nevertheless, Sheriff Arpaio Continued to Publicly Assert
`That the MCSO Had the Authority to Do What the
`Preliminary Injunction Proscribed.
`27.
`In June of 2012, Sheriff Arpaio gave a series of interviews in which he
`acknowledged that the MCSO had been arresting people for whom it had no state charge
`and turning them over to ICE. (Ex. 198A (“When we stop people on violations of the
`law, and then we have suspicion that that person could be here illegally, then we call
`ICE.”).)
`28.
`Sheriff Arpaio also indicated an unwillingness to release such persons if
`ICE refused to accept them and stated that he would “work around” any such refusal.
`(Ex. 200A (June 25, 2012 interview with Fox News, in which Arpaio indicated that he
`would implement a plan to keep arresting unauthorized aliens locally even if ICE
`refused to accept such persons from the MCSO); Doc. 1027 at Tr. 535–38; see also Ex.
`197A; Ex. 198A; Ex. 198B.)
`29. On July 24, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio testified at the underlying trial in this
`matter. During his testimony, Arpaio stated that the MCSO still had the authority to and
`did unauthorized persons for whom the MCSO had no state charges. He testified that
`the MCSO turned such persons over to ICE. (Doc. 572 at Tr. 502–04.)
`30. Other MCSO officers, including Chief Sands, corroborated such activity.
`(Doc. 579 at 105.)
`31.
`Sheriff Arpaio’s insistence that the MCSO retained the authority to detain
`unauthorized persons without any state grounds for detention, does not indicate a failure
`to understand the preliminary injunction, but rather a refusal to abide by it.
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 10 of 162
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Sheriff Arpaio Intentionally Chose Not to Implement the
`Preliminary Injunction.
`32.
`Sheriff Arpaio testified that he did not intentionally violate this Court’s
`orders because he delegated the responsibility of the MCSO’s compliance with the
`preliminary injunction to his subordinates and to his legal counsel. (Doc. 1051 at Tr.
`479, 482, 484–85; see also Ex. 2219 at MELC209836 (“I don’t give the guidance. I have
`my lawyers and subordinates that give guidance.”).)
`33.
`In light of the evidence and testimony at the evidentiary hearing, that
`explanation is neither credible nor acceptable as a matter of fact or law.
`
`1)
`
`Sheriff Arpaio Did Not Change the MCSO’s Operations
`Against the Advice of Chief Sands, Chief MacIntyre, and
`Mr. Casey.
`
`
`34. Chief Sands testified that he met with Sheriff Arpaio shortly after this Court
`issued the preliminary injunction. During that meeting, Sands told Arpaio that the
`MCSO would have to curtail immigration enforcement operations including saturation
`patrols. (Doc. 1017 at Tr. 259.) Sands also told Arpaio that all MCSO deputies should
`learn about the preliminary injunction, but Arpaio instructed Sands to only disseminate
`information regarding the preliminary injunction to the HSU. (Id. at Tr. 261, 328.)
`35.
`Sheriff Arpaio acknowledges the meeting and acknowledges that he
`instructed Chief Sands to only instruct the members of the HSU about the preliminary
`injunction, but he asserts that Mr. Casey was responsible for that instruction. (Doc. 1051
`at Tr. 487:13–18.) Arpaio admits, however, that he had advised Casey, incorrectly, that
`the MCSO did not violate the preliminary injunction. Thus, even if Casey did give such
`advice to Arpaio, it must be understood in that context.
`36. At yet another meeting, Chief Sands told Sheriff Arpaio that the
`preliminary injunction required that the MCSO release unauthorized immigrants for
`whom the MCSO had no state charge instead of taking them to ICE or the Border Patrol.
`(Doc. 1017 at Tr. 269–72; Doc. 1021 at Tr. 350–52.) This included unauthorized
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 11 of 162
`
`
`
`immigrants encountered in drop house raids. (Doc. 1017 at Tr. 269–72; Doc. 1021, Tr. at
`350–52; see also Ex. 2219 at MELC209797.)
`37.
`Sheriff Arpaio acknowledges that he had this second conversation with
`Chief Sands, although he testified that during the conversation he disagreed with Sands as
`to whether unauthorized immigrants encountered in drop houses might be detained as
`material witnesses to human smuggling. (Doc. 1051 at Tr. 487:23–489:18.)
`38. After Sheriff Arpaio’s 2012 trial testimony, Mr. Casey addressed Arpaio
`and Chief Sands and directly explained that the MCSO had no authority to detain
`unauthorized persons and to turn them over to federal authorities. Arpaio stated that he
`understood. (Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1851–54.)
`39. Nevertheless, the MCSO continued to do so.
`
`2)
`
`Instead of Instructing the MCSO to Stop Violating the
`Preliminary
`Injunction, Sheriff Arpaio Promoted
`Continued Detentions and Even Developed and Publicized
`a “Back-Up Plan” to Work Around ICE’s Refusal to
`Accept Detained Person.
`40. On September 21, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio issued a press release announcing a
`“back-up plan” that would allow the MCSO to continue to detain persons for whom it
`had no state charges in light of ICE’s refusal to accept them.
`41. Generally, Sheriff Arpaio reviews all of the MCSO’s press releases before
`they go out, especially if they quote him. (Doc. 1051 at Tr. at 493–94.) The September
`21, 2012 press release quotes Arpaio as saying: “I expected that [ICE’s refusal to accept
`persons from the MCSO for whom it did not have state charges] would happen
`eventually, so I had a back-up plan in place which was to take these illegal immigrants
`not accepted by ICE to the Border Patrol.” (Ex. 51; see also Ex. 199B.) The press
`release continues: “So as directed by the Sheriff, last night deputies took the two
`suspects to Border Patrol.” (Ex. 51; see also Ex. 199B.)
`42.
`Four days after the MCSO issued the press release, the Ninth Circuit
`rejected Sheriff Arpaio’s appeal of the preliminary injunction. See Melendres, 695 F.3d
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 12 of 162
`
`
`
`at 1000–02.
`43. On the day the Ninth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction, Mr.
`Casey sent notification of the decision to MCSO personnel and to Sheriff Arpaio’s
`personal secretary.5 (Ex. 2533 at MELC210588 (TJC entry on 09/25/2012).)
`44.
`Two days later on October 9, 2012, apparently in light of the Ninth
`Circuit’s affirmance of this Court’s preliminary injunction, Sheriff Arpaio issued a press
`release stating: “My back-up plan is still in place and we will continue to take these
`illegal aliens not accepted by ICE to the Border Patrol.” (Ex. 82; Doc. 1027 at Tr.
`563:21–564:2.)
`45.
`Sheriff Arpaio’s publication of his back-up plan, and the incidents that led
`to it, came to the attention of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote a letter to Mr.
`Casey accusing the MCSO of violating the preliminary injunction.
`46. When Mr. Casey discussed the Plaintiffs’ allegations with Chief Sands,
`Sands told Casey that the press releases describing the back-up plan were issued to assist
`Sheriff Arpaio in his upcoming re-election campaign. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1690:12–1691:5,
`1695:2–7; Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1959:24–1961:2.)
`47. Mr. Casey met with Sheriff Arpaio.6 During the meeting, Casey told
`Arpaio that he had never been informed of a back-up plan or a press release discussing
`one, and that he believed the back-up plan as described in the MCSO press releases
`violated the preliminary injunction. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1691–93.) Casey explained that in
`his judgment the preliminary injunction did not allow the MCSO to detain persons
`against whom it could not bring state charges to turn them over to ICE, the Border Patrol,
`or any other federal authority. (Id. at Tr. 1691–92; Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1801–02.)
`
`
`5 Arpaio requires those who wish to communicate with him by email to send the
`communication to his secretary. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1636:13–15, 1681:24–1682:3; see also
`Ex. 2511.)
`6 Chief Sands was present for part of the meeting. Although Chief Sands may not
`have been present for the entire conversation between Sheriff Arpaio and Mr. Casey, he
`generally concurs with the version of events testified to by Casey. (Doc. 1422 at Tr.
`1956–59.)
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 13 of 162
`
`
`
`48. Mr. Casey also raised with Sheriff Arpaio his concern about the fact that
`the press release said that this had been the MCSO’s consistent practice for over six
`years, because this was contrary to Arpaio’s previous assurances to him that the MCSO
`was not detaining persons to turn them over to ICE. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1692–94.)
`49.
`Sheriff Arpaio’s response to Mr. Casey was that “he was the Sheriff, and he
`made the decisions.” (Doc. 1417 at 1692:13–15.)
`50.
`In the conversation, Sheriff Arpaio indicated to Mr. Casey that ICE and the
`Border Patrol had directed the MCSO to detain and turn over to them persons whom the
`MSCO believed to be unauthorized and for whom it had no state charges. (Doc. 1422 at
`Tr. 1802:7–14.)
`51.
`In fact, the Court finds that neither ICE nor the Border Patrol ever
`instructed the MCSO to turn over to them any persons whom the MCSO believed to be in
`the United States without authorization. Casey never saw any documentation suggesting
`that ICE or the Border Patrol had actually issued such instructions. (Doc. 1422 at Tr.
`1802:7–14; see also Ex. 2514.) Defendants introduced no credible testimony or evidence
`at the hearing that federal agencies ever gave the MCSO any such instructions.
`52. Moreover, to accept Sheriff Arpaio’s statement that ICE and/or the Border
`Patrol directed him to turn over unauthorized persons for whom he had no state charges
`contradicts Arpaio’s own press releases which indicate that it was his “back-up plan” to
`turn unauthorized persons over to the Border Patrol once ICE began refusing to accept
`them. (Ex. 51; see also Ex. 199B.) Additionally, even if ICE or the Border Patrol had
`issued such a direction to the MCSO, any such direction would not have changed the
`explicit orders of this Court to the MCSO prohibiting it from doing so.
`53. Mr. Casey, taking his client at his word that federal authorities had given
`Sheriff Arpaio such direction, determined that it was possible to construct a good faith
`argument that the MCSO was not violating the preliminary injunction. But Casey told
`Arpaio that even though he could make such an argument, he did not believe that it
`would prevail. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1691–95; Doc. 1422 at Tr. 1802, 1847–49.)
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 14 of 162
`
`
`
`54. Mr. Casey advised Sheriff Arpaio that the MCSO should cease activities
`pursuant to Arpaio’s back-up plan because it was in violation of the preliminary
`injunction. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1693 (“It was not a pleasant conversation . . . but [I] relayed
`to him that this is a problem. This cannot go on.”).)
`55.
`Sheriff Arpaio assured Mr. Casey that operations pursuant to his back-up
`plan would cease. (Doc. 1417 at Tr. 1693, 1700:23–25.)
`56. Despite his communications with Mr. Casey, Sheriff Arpaio continued to
`directly instruct the head of the HSU to continue to detain such persons and turn them
`over to ICE.
`57.
`Lieutenant Jakowinicz, who was then in charge of the HSU, recalls a
`meeting with Sheriff Arpaio during the latter part of 2012, (Doc. 1051 at Tr. 404:13–16),
`in which Arpaio directed Jakowinicz to call the Border Patrol if ICE refused to take
`custody of an individual for whom the MCSO did not have state charges justifying
`detention. (Id. at Tr. 371:9–372:9.) Arpaio acknowledges that he had this conversation
`with Jakowinicz. (Doc. 1027 at Tr. 553–54.)
`
`3)
`
`Sheriff Arpaio’s Persistent and Publicized Violations of
`the Preliminary Injunction Were Motivated by His Belief
`that Such Activities Would Benefit His Upcoming Re-
`election Campaign.
`58.
`Sheriff Arpaio knowingly ignored the Court’s order because he believed
`that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his enforcement of immigration laws.
`(Doc. 1017 at Tr. 277:5–13; Ex. 196C (August 31, 2012 interview with Fox News in
`which Arpaio states: “[T]hey like me because I’m enforcing the illegal immigration
`laws. So I think that should send a message that I am doing what the people elected me
`to do.”).) He also believed that it resulted in generous donations to his campaign. (Ex.
`196D (August 31, 2012 Fox News interview in which Arpaio states: “I’ve raised 7.5
`million [dollars] just to run for Sheriff . . . .”); Ex. 201B (April 13, 2012 interview in
`which Arpaio refers to the “big bucks” he is raising).)
`59.
`Sheriff Arpaio spoke frequently with the media and the public about the
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1677 Filed 05/13/16 Page 15 of 162
`
`
`
`MCSO’s immigrat