melendres # 1333 | p statement of facts

8/20/2019 Melendres # 1333 | P Statement of Facts

1/66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0775

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

Daniel J. Pochoda

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation of Arizona

3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235

Phoenix, AZ 85014

Telephone: (602) 650-1854

Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional attorneys

for Plaintiffs listed on next page)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,

et al.,

)

)

CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS

)

Plaintiff(s), )

) PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 56.1(B)

v. ) STATEMENT OF FACTS

) AND RULE 56(D) STATEMENT

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., ) OF UNAVAILABLE FACTS IN

) OPPOSITION TO SANDS’

Defendants(s). ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY

) JUDGMENT

)

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 21


2/66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project125 Broad Street, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Telephone: (212) 549-2676

Facsimile: (212) 549-2654

Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLP

One CityCenter850 Tenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001-4956

Telephone: (202) 662-5996

Facsimile: (202) 778-5996

Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

Telephone: (949) 824-9894

Facsimile: (949) 824-0066

Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund

634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512

Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLP

333 Twin Dolphin DriveSuite 700

Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1418

Telephone: (650) 632-4700

Facsimile: (650) 632-4800

Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)

[email protected]

Covington & Burling LLPOne Front Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 591-7066

Facsimile: (415) 955-6566



3/66

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Pursuant to LRCiv 56.1(b), Plaintiffs submit the following statements of facts in

opposition to Retired Executive Chief Brian Sands’ (“Sands”) Motion for Summary

Judgment and in response to Sands’ Statement of Facts in support of his motion.

Plaintiffs also submit the following declaration of unavailable facts necessary to their

opposition, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).

I.

LRCiv 56.1(b) Controverting Statement of Facts

A. Disputed Facts in Sands’ Statement of Facts

1. Disputed. The Court has stated that contempt proceedings are

necessary to determine the circumstances and scope of the violation of the Dec. 23,

2011 preliminary injunction, including violations by MCSO as well as by individual

named contemnors including Sands, and the full scope of the violations at issue cannot

be known until all the documents relevant to the contempt proceedings are produced

by Defendants. Dkt. 880 at 9-15;1 Dkt. 1007 at 1-2; Dkt. 1208; Aug. 21, 2015 Tr.

15:20-16:11 (ordering rolling production of .pst files); see Rule 56(d) statement, infra.

2.

Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,

Plaintiffs identify that the Court’s December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction was

violated by MCSO’s continuing application of its LEAR policy.

3. Not Disputed. The LEAR policy called for MCSO deputies to

detain persons believed to be in the country without authorization but whom they

could not arrest on state charges, and to either deliver those persons to ICE or detain

1 Page citations for cited docket entries refer to the docket-stamped pagination in the

ECF file header.



4/66

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

them until MCSO received a response from ICE. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law at 2:12-15, May 24, 2013. Dkt. 579.

4. Not Disputed. In their request for an order to show cause,

Plaintiffs identified four particular incidents where MCSO’s LEAR policy was

followed.

5. Not Disputed. On July 24, 2012, Sheriff Arpaio testified that the

LEAR policy remained in effect.

6. Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 21,

2012, the substance of which is set forth on pages A3-A5 of Exhibit A to the January

8, 2015 Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.

7. Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on September 27,

2012, the substance of which is set forth on pages A6-A7 of Exhibit A to the January

8, 2015 Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.

8.

Not Disputed. MCSO issued a press release on October 9, 2012,

the substance of which is set forth on page A8 of Exhibit A to the January 8, 2015

Declaration of Andre Segura. Dkt. 843-2.

9. Not Disputed. The MCSO press releases on September 21, 2012,

September 27, 2012, and October 9, 2012, showed that the MCSO continued to follow

the LEAR policy after the December 23, 2011 Preliminary Injunction.

10. Not Disputed. The September 21 press release states that the

policy of turning over to ICE individuals for which there was insufficient evidence to

bring state charges (commonly termed the LEAR policy was MCSO’s “practice during

the last six years.”



5/66

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

11. Not Disputed. Plaintiffs’ counsel knew about these press releases

on October 11, 2012.

12. Not Disputed. Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter to Tim Casey on

October 11, 2012, stating, “It has come to our attention that the [MCSO] appears to be

detaining and transporting individuals in violation of the Court’s injunction . . . .”

13. Disputed. Plaintiffs did raise issues relating to violation of the

Court’s orders (and implicitly, of contempt) when they first became aware of the press

releases, by writing a letter to Defendants about the press releases and seeking

assurances that violations of the injunction were not occurring. Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5.

14. Not Disputed. On May 24, 2013, the Court issued its post-trial

findings of fact and conclusions of law.

15. Not Disputed. The Court’s May 24, 2013 Order found, “as a

matter of law, that the MCSO has violated the explicit terms of this Court’s

preliminary injunction set forth in its December 23, 2011 order because the MCSO

continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the preliminary

injunction.”

16. Disputed. Plaintiffs did request a filing of contempt after the

Court’s May 24, 2013 order, though not immediately after that order was issued.

17.

Not Disputed. On January 8, 2015, Plaintiffs requested an order to

show cause why the defendants and certain individuals should not be held in contempt.

18. Not Disputed. Two years, five months, and fifteen days elapsed

between the time Sheriff Arpaio offered the testimony set forth in paragraph 5 and the

date on which Plaintiffs filed their request for an order to show cause.



6/66

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

19. Not Disputed. The Court issued its Order to Show Cause on

February 12, 2015.

20. Plaintiffs are without knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny this

statement.

21. Not Disputed. Chief Sands testified that, shortly after the

Preliminary Injunction was issued, there was a meeting about the injunction at Sheriff

Arpaio’s office at which both Chief Deputy Sheridan and Sheriff Arpaio were present.

Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 260:9-16.

22.

Disputed because materially incomplete. Sergeant Trowbridge

testified that shortly after the preliminary injunction issued, there was a meeting about

the injunction at Sheriff Arpaio’s office at which Chief Deputy Sheridan, Sheriff

Arpaio, and Chief Sands were present, along with Lisa Allen and “anybody that

worked for Lisa Allen,” as well as counsel for MCSO. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 437:1-438:4.

23.

Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the

evidence cited in support as dispositive of Chief Deputy Sheridan’s actual recollection.

Chief Deputy Sheridan testified that he could not recall being at a meeting about the

Preliminary Injunction at which both he and Sheriff Arpaio were present, 897:21-

898:17, and additional documents may further refresh the witness’s memory. Further,

both Sands and Plaintiffs are without knowledge regarding Chief Deputy Sheridan’s

actual ability to recall whether he attended a meeting regarding the Preliminary

Injunction.

24. Disputed because the statement is incomprehensible as written,

because the statement mischaracterizes the cited testimony, and because additional



7/66

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

documents may further refresh the witness’s memory. Further, both Sands and

Plaintiffs are without knowledge regarding Sheriff Arpaio’s actual ability to recall a

meeting about the Preliminary Injunction.

25.

Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the

evidence cited in support as dispositive of Sheriff Arpaio’s and Chief Deputy

Sheridan’s actual ability to recall facts about the distribution of the Court’s Preliminary

Injunction Order or the meetings and discussions they had about it, additional

documents may further refresh the witnesses’ memories, and Sheriff Arpaio’s and

Chief Deputy Sheridan’s self-serving testimony in a contempt proceeding provides

both Sands and Plaintiffs with insufficient basis upon which to evaluate these

contemnors’ actual recall of the events in question.

26. Disputed. Sands testified that Lieutenant Sousa was assigned the

task of preparing the training materials, and that Sands believed Sousa would carry out

that task without any need for follow-up from Sands—Sands did not testify that he

(Sands) assigned this task to Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 334:11-18.

27. Disputed. The emails that surfaced about the development of

training scenarios are equivocal with respect to the identity of the individual who

ordered the training to be developed, in that they indicate that Lieutenant Sousa asked

that training be developed but do not suggest that Sands ordered Sousa to develop the

training scenarios. See, e.g., CaseySub 000003 (Exhibit 1) (Sousa orders Brett Palmer

to develop training scenarios); CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit 2) (same).

28. Not Disputed. The emails show Lieutenant Sousa’s efforts to try

to develop training.



8/66

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

29. Disputed because the statement mischaracterizes the nature of the

evidence cited in support as dispositive of the witnesses’ actual frame of mind or

ability to recall facts regarding the training, as compared to their willingness to testify

about their recollections at a contempt hearing. Furthermore, the final state of any

witness’s memory remains unclear because additional documents may further refresh

the witnesses’ memories.


evidence cited in support as dispositive of the actual state of Lieutenant Sousa’s

memory, and additional documents may further refresh the witness’s memory. The

cited testimony provides both Sands and Plaintiffs with insufficient basis upon which

to evaluate the witness’s actual recall of the events in question.












evidence cited in support as dispositive of the actual state of Sergeant Palmer’s



9/66

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28




34.

Not Disputed. The Court’s Preliminary Injunction was issued on

December 23, 2011. Order, Dec. 23, 2011. Dkt. 494.

35. Not Disputed. More than three years elapsed between the date the

Court’s Preliminary Injunction was filed and Plaintiffs’ Request for an Order to Show

Cause was filed.

36.

Not Disputed. The MCSO has a record in this case of inadequate

document retention. See Order Denying Motion for Recusal or Disqualification at

21:11-14, Jul. 10, 2015. Dkt. 1164.


statement, including knowledge of the avenues available to Sands to seek documents

from MCSO.

38. Disputed. MCSO has thus far only identified eight documents on

its initial privilege log in response to Sands’ document requests, but more documents

may arise and be logged, as MCSO continues to produce, review, and log documents.

See, e.g., Transcript, Sept. 4, 2014 Status Conference (forthcoming) at 11:6-13:9; 15:9-

32:6 (discussing status of production and disputes relating to documents not yet

produced by Defendants).

39. Not Disputed. After being directed to by the Court, Defendants

located and identified additional, relevant emails. March 27, 2015 Tr. 32:16-21.



10/66

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

40. Not Disputed. After witnesses testified about undisclosed emails,

the Court directed individuals’ computers searched, and depositions had to be

reopened, additional relevant emails were discovered.

41.

Disputed. Sands testified that Lieutenant Sousa was assigned the

task of preparing the training materials, and that Sands believed Sousa would carry out

that task without any need for follow-up from Sands—Sands did not testify that he

(Sands) assigned this task to Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 334:11-18. The

emails that surfaced about the development of training scenarios are equivocal with

respect to the identity of the individual who ordered the training to be developed, in

that they indicate that Lieutenant Sousa asked that training be developed but do not

suggest that Sands ordered Sousa to develop the training scenarios. See, e.g., CaseySub

000003 (Exhibit 1) (Sousa orders Brett Palmer to develop training scenarios);

CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit 2) (same).

42.

Disputed. Tim Casey has produced emails, including at least some

of the emails sent to him by Lieutenant Sousa. See, e.g., CaseySub 000046-49 (Exhibit

2).


statement, as the cited testimony states that Sands retired “in July of 2013,” which may

or may not indicate a July 31, 2013 retirement date.


statement.



11/66

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

45. Not Disputed. One of Plaintiffs original causes of action in this

case was that MCSO’s officers’ detention of persons based on knowledge that such

persons were in the country illegally, without more, violated the Fourth Amendment.

46.

Not Disputed. The detention of persons based on knowledge that

such persons were in the country illegally, without more, violates both the Fourth

Amendment and the Preliminary Injunction.

47. Not Disputed. Plaintiffs seek compensatory relief for violations of

the Preliminary Injunction that occurred when MCSO officers detained members of

the Plaintiff class based on knowledge that such persons were in the country illegally,

without more.

48. Not Disputed. The Court’s October 2, 2013 Order was a final

judgment on the merits. See Order at 58:23-24, Oct. 2, 2013. Dkt. 606.

49. Disputed. This fact is not complete. Violations of the Preliminary

Injunction arose out of MCSO’s continued application of the LEAR policy as well as

out of other grounds, not all of which are presently known, given the ongoing

discovery, document production, and contempt proceedings. See, e.g., Dkt. 880 at 9-

18.

50. Not Disputed. After the Preliminary Injunction was issued, the

legality of the LEAR policy was actually litigated.

51. Not Disputed. The Court found that the LEAR policy violated

both the Fourth Amendment and its Preliminary Injunction.

52. Not Disputed. The Court granted Plaintiffs relief.



12/66

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

53. Disputed. Plaintiffs were impeded in their pursuit of contempt

findings against Sands and others because of Defendants’ material misstatements,

including those made by their counsel Tim Casey’s denial of any violation in October

2012. A finding of contempt and the scope of sanctions commensurate with the still-

unknown scope of the contempt could not have been raised before the clarity gained

through Defendants’ statements (through counsel) at the November 2014 status

hearing, which led to Plaintiffs’ January 2015 motion for an OSC. See, e.g., Dkt. 804,

Nov. 20, 2014 Tr. at 67-68; Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5, 13-16.

B. Additional Facts Establishing a Genuine Issue of Material Fact or

Otherwise Precluding Judgment in Favor of the Moving Party

1. Sands testified that he retired in July of 2013 after approximately

30 years working at the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 255:3-14;

320:17-19.

2. Prior to retirement, as Executive Chief of MCSO, Sands took

direction from Sheriff Arpaio, including direction relating to saturation patrols. Dkt.

579 at 52 (citing Trial Tr. at 707:16-18, 809:20-810:3, 814:21-815:1, 824:24-825:6);

id. at 53 n.46 (citing Tr. 797:15-20, 797:24-798:15); Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 346:9-13.

3. In 2011, while he was Chief of Enforcement, three bureau

commanders reported to Sands: one relating to patrol operations, one relating to

investigative operations, and one relating to training, records and ID, and civil and

criminal warrants. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 255:3-10, 321:13-20. Though Chief David

Trombi reported to Sands, Sands and Trombi both supervised the Human Smuggling

Unit (HSU). Dkt. 579 at 8; Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 345:4-23, 356:8-9. See also Apr. 21,



13/66

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

2015 Tr. 48:13-20, 98:2-6, 99:1-20, 134:6-7 (Trombi testimony); 178:16-18 (Palmer

testimony).

4. While at MCSO, Sands was involved in MCSO’s decision-

making process surrounding how to put the preliminary injunction into effect. For

instance, Sands testified that shortly after the Court issued its preliminary injunction,

he discussed implementation of the preliminary injunction with at least Sheriff Arpaio,

Chief Deputy Sheridan, Tim Casey (counsel for MCSO, see Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 107:11-

14), Deputy Chief MacIntyre, and Lieutenant Sousa. Apr. 21, 2015 Tr. 256:16-257:12,

258:23-261:24, 262:13-264:11. A November 6, 2014 email from Tim Casey states that

Sands “was our (i.e., litigation counsels’) point of primary contact in this case at that

time” and that Sands “was handling this Order.” CaseySub 000050-53 (Exhibit 3) at

CaseySub 000050. Other documents suggest that Sands was the final authority to

approve communications regarding implementation of the preliminary injunction

order. MELC834972-73 (Exhibit 4) (June 7, 2012 email from Lisa Allen to Brian

Sands and his assistant Jenise Moreno, bearing subject line “Janice make sure [Chief]

Sands sees and reviews this and returns his approval or corrections to Chris Hegstrom

by Friday (tomorrow),” and containing draft answers to questions regarding MCSO

immigration enforcement practices); see also MELC837097-98 (Exhibit 5) (email

from Allen to Sousa, containing the list of questions and stating that “Chief Sands has

asked me to forward these questions to you for a brief response”), MELC837095-96

(Exhibit 6) (Sousa’s email providing his draft answers to Allen). Still other documents

suggest Sands also had chain of command authority over training relating to the



14/66

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

preliminary injunction, by virtue of his authority over Lieutenant Sousa. CaseySub

000046-49 (Exhibit 2).

5. Trial on the merits of MCSO’s violations of the constitutional

rights of the plaintiffs’ class took place from July 19 through August 2, 2012. Dkt. 529

(Order Setting Trial) at 1; see also 2012 trial transcripts. The Court issued Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law on May 24, 2013. Dkt. 579. The Court’s findings

included findings that MCSO had violated the preliminary injunction because “MCSO

continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the injunction.” Id.

at 114:19-23.

6. MCSO issued press releases on September 21, 2012, September

27, 2012, and October 9, 2012. SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 44-49). The MCSO press

releases on September 21, 2012, September 27, 2012, and October 9, 2012 appear to

show that MCSO continued to follow the LEAR policy after the December 23, 2011

Preliminary Injunction. Id.

7. On October 11, 2012, Plaintiffs timely raised their concerns about

MCSO’s September and October 2012 press releases, SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 44-

49), in a letter to Defendants’ counsel, Tim Casey. SSOF Ex. 5 (Dkt. 1215-1 at 42-43).

8. Casey responded by letter dated October 18, 2012, assuring

Plaintiffs that violations of the preliminary injunction were not occurring. Dkt. 843-2

at 13-16. However, Plaintiffs were concerned about the reliability of the information,

and raised the violation of the LEAR policy to Defendants’ counsel on October 11,

2012. Dkt. 843-2 at 4-5 (A1-A2).



15/66

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

9. The Court held a status conference on November 20, 2014. Dkt.

804 (unsealed transcript of Nov. 20, 2014 proceedings). At that hearing, Defendants

admitted to the Court and the parties, for the first time, that MCSO had failed to

comply with the preliminary injunction order by conducting a traffic stop (“the Korean

stop”) on November 1, 2012, as part of an interdiction patrol of the type prohibited by

the preliminary injunction. Id. at 67-68. Defendants also revealed that no one at MCSO

had disseminated information about the December 23, 2011 preliminary injunction

order to the rank-and-file. Id. at 67:20-22 (“MCSO has concluded, that this Court’s

order was not communicated to the line troops in the HSU.”).

10. Plaintiffs filed a motion for an Order to Show Cause on January 8,

2015, less than two months after the November status conference. That motion was

granted on February 12, 2015. Dkts. 843, 880. Plaintiffs do not dispute the fact recited

in ¶ 4 of Sands’ Statement of Facts. However, Plaintiffs also cited other violations

relating to the LEAR policy and noted that “there are likely other incidents of

violations not known to Plaintiffs.” Dkt. 843 at 6-8, 12.

11. The district court commenced contempt hearings in April 2015,

acknowledging during the hearing that when it noted the existence of preliminary

injunction violations in its May 24, 2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

was not aware of the “vast scope” of those violations. Apr. 22, 2015 Tr. 303:7-16; see

Dkt. 579 at 5:25-6:3; see also Dkt. 880 at 9-25. Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy

Sheridan admitted to civil contempt as a result of MCSO’s failure to implement the

preliminary injunction. Dkt. 948 at 1; Apr. 23, 2015 Tr. 625:18-627:10; Apr. 24, 2015

Tr. 971:9-19.



16/66

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

12. Documents produced by Defendants include an HSU “Master

Log” of traffic stops prior to July 31, 2013, including stops of people with Hispanic

last names (i.e., apparent members of the Plaintiffs class). “HSU 2013 Master

Log.xlsx,” DR# 13-104270 (May 25, 2013 incident involving three suspects); DR# 13-

098000 (May 22, 2013 incident in which eight individuals were logged as “Turned

Over to ICE”); DR# 13-094361 (May 17, 2013 incident in which four individuals were

logged as “Turned Over to ICE”) (Exhibit 7).

II. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) Declaration of Unavailable Facts

The following unavailable facts are essential to the opposition to Sands’ motion

for summary judgment.

1. Contempt proceedings relating to Sands and other contemnors

began on April 21, 2015 and are scheduled to continue on September 22, 2015. Dkt.

1025 (civil minutes); Dkt. 1208 at 2 (setting hearing dates in September-November

2015 for resumed contempt hearing). Evidence, including documents and videos not

produced to Plaintiffs prior to the 2012 trial or the 2013 rulings and witness testimony

obtained with reference to those documents, was available for consideration at the

April 2015 hearing dates and yet more evidence unavailable at trial and produced or

obtained since the April 2015 hearing dates, will be available to the parties at the

resumed hearing dates. See, e.g., Dkts. 1203, 1208 at 2-3; Aug. 28, 2015 Tr. at 22:15-

23, 33:11-34:13 (regarding ongoing productions by Defendants).

2. Numerous documents bearing on the scope of violation of the

preliminary injunction order have been produced by Defendants since the May 24,

2013 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were entered, including documents



17/66

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

predating Sands’ retirement, and still more documents predating Sands’ retirement

may yet be produced, since Defendants have not completed their obligations to

produce all documents the Court has deemed relevant to the contempt proceedings.

See, e.g., Dkt. 1203, Dkt. 1208; Aug. 21, 2015 Tr. 12:6-16:19 (regarding Defendants’

ongoing document productions; and extending deadline to produce, on a rolling basis,

nonprivileged .pst files); see also Dkts. 1255, 1258 (Defendants’ Aug. 20, 2015 and

Aug. 21, 2015 notices of document production).

3. The documents and evidence produced by Defendants since the

2013 final judgment may be relevant to grounds for a finding of contempt by Sands.

See, e.g., Aug. 21, 2015 Tr. 13:5-16:19. For example, documents relating to MCSO’s

internal affairs investigation relating to the violation of the preliminary injunction

order (IA 14-0543) were ordered produced. Dkt. 1208 at 3, ¶ 6. The documents

produced thus far encompass events in which Sands participated prior to his

retirement. See, e.g., internal affairs investigation file IA 14-0543 (MELC-IA013767-

20744) (Attorneys’ Eyes Only) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 8, lodged under seal:

MELC-IA013767-71, MELC-IA013830-915). The IA 14-0543 investigation included

an interview of Sands, and interviews of other individuals regarding Sands’ role in

implementing the preliminary injunction. Id., e.g. at MELC-IA013832-33 (summary of

investigative tasks), MELC-IA013843-47 (summary of interview with Sands). And

other documents produced in August 2015 include .pst files reflecting the content of

email sent to, from, or about Sands. See, e.g., MELC678450 (Exhibit 9), produced on

August 24, 2015 (8/28/12 ICE inquiry to MCSO re: Border Enforcement Security Task

Force, which leads to MCSO response that “I believe, if anyone knows, it would be



18/66

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Chief Sands.”); MELC834972 (Exhibit 4), MELC837095 (Exhibit 6), produced on

August 28, 2015 (Sands is sent email containing draft answers to questions regarding

traffic stops of suspected illegal aliens, has the questions forwarded to Sousa, and is

copied on Sousa’s answers to the inquiry); MELC678044 (Exhibit 10) (email

regarding an MCSO employee’s upcoming student interview on immigration issues: “I

wanted to talk to Chief Sands to make sure I don’t answer contrary to the bosses

wishes.”); MELC678707-08 (Exhibit 11) (email from undergraduate student doing a

project on immigration, to MCSO, requesting interview with Arpaio; she is directed to

Sands).

4. Discovery responses provided by Defendants on April 14, 2015

revealed that on December 26, 2011 Tim Casey conferred with Sands for

approximately 15-20 minutes, and again conferred with Sands and Lieutenant Joseph

Sousa on December 30, 2011 for approximately one hour and five minutes.

Defendants’ Apr. 14, 2015 Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ Amended First Set of

Interrogatories Regarding Contempt at 8, Response No. 10. Privilege as to that

meeting has been waived but Casey has not yet been deposed about this meeting. See,

e.g., Dkt. 1094 at 4-8; Dkt. 1045 at 1-8.

5. Plaintiffs have not completed their depositions of Sands and other

MCSO witnesses in relation to the newly-produced evidence. See, e.g., Dkt. 1296

(Notice of Deposition of Brian Sands); see also, e.g., Dkts. 1278, 1279, 1281, 1283,

1284, 1287-1298, 1303 (notices of deposition of other witnesses). These depositions

are likely to encompass Sands’ role in the preliminary injunction violation. See, e.g.,

Dkt. 1208 at 3 (ordering production of documents relating to internal affairs



19/66

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

investigations from 2008 forward, relating to allegations of discrimination against or

illegal detentions of members of the Plaintiffs class); Transcript of Aug. 6, 2015

Monitor interview of Chief Sheridan at 174-76 (Exhibit 13) (describing Sands’ role in

the Melendres matter and disputing Sands’ account of meetings with Tim Casey

regarding the preliminary injunction); Transcript of Dec. 14, 2014 Monitor interview

of Lieutenant Brian Jakowinicz at 29-30, 34, 41-42 (Exhibit 14) (describing Sands’

role in managing Armendariz assignment and putting Armendariz back on the road

despite concerns with Armendariz’ performance, and Sands’ role in implementing the

preliminary injunction order); Transcript of Dec. 16, 2014 Monitor interview of

Sergeant Mike Trowbridge at 8-10 (Exhibit 15) (stating that “Sands was a lot more

involved in the unit than Chief Trombi was” and that Sands “was closer to the

Sheriff”); Transcript of Dec. 17, 2014 Monitor interview of Sergeant Brett Palmer at

28-29 (Exhibit 16) (stating that his experience, including from meetings with Sands,

was that “the company line . . . is to make the Sheriff look good and get the Sheriff

elected”).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of September, 2015.

By: /s/ Tammy Albarrán

Cecillia D. Wang ( Pro Hac Vice)

Andre I. Segura ( Pro Hac Vice)

ACLU Foundation

Immigrants’ Rights Project

Daniel Pochoda

ACLU Foundation of Arizona



20/66

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Anne Lai ( Pro Hac Vice)

Stanley Young ( Pro Hac Vice)

Tammy Albarran ( Pro Hac Vice)

Michelle L. Morin ( Pro Hac Vice)

Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)

Hyun S. Byun ( Pro Hac Vice)

Priscilla G. Dodson ( Pro Hac Vice)

Covington & Burling, LLP

Jorge M. Castillo ( Pro Hac Vice)

Mexican American Legal Defense and

Educational Fund

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



21/66

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 11, 2015 I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerk’s office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

caused the attached document to be served via the CM/ECF System on all counsel of

record.

/s/ Tammy Albarrán



22/66

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 45


23/66

Tim

J

Casey

From:

Sent:

To:

Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX

Wednesday, January

11 201211:16

AM

Brett

Palmer-

SHERIFFX

Cc:

Tim J Casey; Rollie Seabert- SHERIFFX; Brian Sands- SHERIFFX; David Trombi -

SHERIFFX; Eileen Henry; Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX

Subject:

Putting out training reference the court order

Attachments:

Order re MSJ 122311.pdf

Bret,

Per our phone conversation write up a couple of scenarios right way and wrong way) based

on Judge Snows order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey. I will have Tim review what

you write up and have Chief Sands sign

off

on it Once all that is done we will get with training

· reference putting something out in E-Learning.

Judge Snows order:

The Court is enjoining the MCSO from detaining any person based solely on knowledge,

without more,

that

the person s

in

the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the

Court

is not

enjoing MCSO from enforcing valid state laws,

or

detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable

suspicion that individuals are violating a state criminal law. Instead, it s enjoing MCSO from violating

federal, rights protected by the United States Constitution in the process

of

enforcing valid state law

based on an incorrect understanding of the law.: p. 37-38.

(See attached for full ruling).

Thanks,

Joe

1

CaseySub 000003



24/66

EXHIBIT 2



25/66

From Joseph

Sousa -

SHERIFFX

[mailto:J

[email protected]]

Sent Tuesday, January 24, 2012 10:20 AM

To Tim

J. casey

Cc:

Brian

Sands - SHERIFFX;

David

Trombi - SHERIFFX;

Rollie Seebert

- SHERIFFX; Brian Jakowinicz - SHERIFFX; John

Madntyre - SHERIFFX

Subject

Scenarios

for

review based on

judge's order

Hi

Tim,

Give me a call once you have reviewed the scenarios listed below. I am going to

copy

you on

all these emails so attorney client privilege applies until we get a final training product out

to

the

troops.

Thanks,

Joe

From

Brett

Palmer

- SHERIFFX

Sent

Thursday, January

19,

2012

11:24

PM

To Joseph

Sousa -

SHERIFFX

Cc:

Tim

casey;

Michael Trowbridge - SHERIFFX

Subject RE: Putting out training reference the court order

Lt. Sousa-

Below

is my rough construction of

an

eLeaming segment based

on

Judge Snow s order. I constructed this in

accordance with the many conversations you

I

have had, as well as taking into account the information

conveyed to us both from Tim Casey concerning Judge

Snow s

order. Also, in accordance with

my

own

personal

experience in this matter, I think

it

is imperative that Tim Casey review this and any training· material I

arn

asked

to

create that could

be

used to instruct Deputies in this very sensitive area. Also note,

I

created these scenarios

with

Patrol Deputies

as

the focus.

Training Directive

Maricopa County Deputies in a wide range of assignments could come across individuals through their lawful

contacts whom they suspect through reasonable suspicion of being illegal aliens in the United States.

It

is

important the Deputies and the Supervisors understand the scope to which they are empowered

to

act in these

scenarios, as limits have recently

been

set

by

Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court case. The order issued

by

Judge Snow states that MCSO cannot detain any person based solely on the suspicion they are an illegal alien

present in the United States. What this means is that any Deputy who has contact with a person and during the

contact, the Deputy arrives at the reasonable suspicion through articulable indicators that the person may be

an

illegal alien in the United States, cannot and will not detain

or

further the detainment of his person without having

more than

just

this singular suspicion.

The most common articulable indicators giving rise to the reasonable suspicion that a person

may

be an illegal

alien in the United States are:

1

The person speaks no English

or

difficult/broken English

2 The person has no form of I or no form of I issued by the United States.

2

CaseySub 46



26/66

Scenario I

A Patrol Deputy working at 2AM is patrolling a residential area known to have been hit recently with car

burglaries.

The

Deputy comes across an adult male walking in

the

area and decides to make contact. The Deputy

quickly finds this person speaks

no

English

and

the only ID

he

has is a Mexico Driver License issued by

Mexico. After talking with this person for several minutes, the Deputy determines there is no crime being

committed under state law, but the Deputy reasonably believes based on the two indicators listed above that this

person may be an illegal alien in the United States.

DO

NOT DETAIN The Deputy has no other articulable

indicators to show a crime ha s, is, or is about to

be

committed under state law. The Deputy cannot detain based

solely on the reasonable suspicion this person may

be

an illegal alien.

In

this scenario, the Deputy should end his

contact and allow the person to continue on their way.

Scenario 2

A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for speeding. The Deputy fmds the vehicle is occupied by

four adult male subjects. The driver speaks only Spanish and provides a valid Arizona driver license as his ID. As

a matter ofgood policing practice, the Deputy asks for lD from the three passengers. All three passengers provide

Mexico Consular Cards issued by the Mexican Consulate as lD not a U.S.

ID).

All three passengers speak only

Spanish. Within about

15

minutes, the Deputy has determined no criminal offense has, is

or

is about

to be

committed.

The

only violation is the civil speeding. However, the Deputy does reasonably believe based on the

two indicators listed above that the three passengers may be illegal aliens in the United States.

DO

NOT DETAIN

- The Deputy has no articulable indicators of a crime under state

law.

The Deputy cannot detain based solely on

the reasonable suspicion these passengers may be illegal aliens.

In

this scenario, the Deputy should use their

discretion

to

issue either a written citation or a verbal warning to the driver and release the vehicle with all of he

occupants.

Scenario 3

A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop on a vehicle for expired registration. The Deputy

fmds

the vehicle is

occupied by

an

adult

male

driver and an adult male passenger. The driver speaks only Spanish and presents an

expired California Driver License as

ID.

The passenger speaks only Spanish and presents a Mexico Voter

Registration Card

as

ID

not a U.S.

ID).

The fact that the passenger does not speak English and has no form of

U.S.

I

causes the Deputy to reasonably believe the passenger may be an illegal alien in the United States. During

the traffic stop investigation, the Deputy discovers the passenger is in possession of an open alcohol container

and has been consuming alcohol out of that container while riding in the vehicle.

In

this scenario, there are two

aspects to consider... With respect to the driver, the Deputy should write the driver a civil citation for expired

registration and driving with an expired driver license. The driver should ultimately be released after being issued

the citation. While the driver speaks only Spanish, he did present a valid form ofU.S.lD.

It

does not matter that

the I was expired.

The

expired California license is still a valid form of U.S.

ID.

There is no reasonable

suspicion the driver is

an

illegal alien. With respect to the passenger, the Deputy should write a criminal citation

to the passenger for the Title Four violation. While in the course of writing both citations, the Deputy can

simultaneously place a phone call to ICE to advise them ofhis suspicion that the passenger may be an illegal alien

in the U.S.

IfiCE

clearly instructs the Deputy to detain the passenger for subsequent

tum

over to an ICE facility

or officer, then the Deputy can make the physical detaimnent of the passenger based on the directive from

ICE. The difference in this scenario from the first two is that there

was

a criminal offense under state law

committed

by

the passenger. The passenger was not detained because of suspicion he was

an

illegal alien. The

passenger was detained

for

a state law violation and in the course of he ongoing investigation ICE was contacted.

Notes for Discussion- Scenario 3:

1

Per our many conversations LT, patrol needs very clear direct instructions

on

how to handle

these situations.

3

CaseySub 000047



27/66

2) Is the Office going to require that criminal offenders in these instances be booked as a matter of

policy, having removed the Deputy s discretion? If yes, then this in

my

opinion removes

any

idea

of

ever having patrol

tum

over a suspected illegal alien to ICE. They would

all

be booked.

3) There is the Florence ERO issue

...

Unless the Deputy is working in District One

or

Six, any

turnover of an alien to ICE would conceivably take at a minimum 1 hour to as much as 3 hours or

more given that the Deputy would have to drive to Florence or wait for ICE Officers

to

come to

him from Florence.

If

the Deputy is going to be authorized to drive there, this is an out

of

county

travel assignment and the training would need to address the Deputy obtaining supervisory

permission for the out

of

county

travel- just

my opinion thinking about liability.

Scenario 4

A Patrol Deputy conducts a traffic stop

on

a vehicle for speeding. The Deputy finds the vehicle is occupied by

I 0 Hispanic subjects - a driver and nine passengers. The passengers all appear to have either no ID

or

only ID

issued by another country other than the U.S. The passengers all appear to have a disheveled look, are dirty

in

appearance, look

as

if one

or

more of them were very recently in a desert enviromnent, and all appear

nervous. There is a lack

ofluggage in

the vehicle. The nine passengers are taking up space in the vehicle meant

to comfortably seat six or less. The driver provides a story about their travel that cannot

be

corroborated in totality

by the

passengers

or

there are conflicting stories of their travel between the driver and passengers. The driver

eventually admits

he

s being paid for driving these passengers to a specific destination (could be he is receiving

money

for gas).

n

this scenario, the Deputy should contact the on-call

HSU

Sgt. through Radio

as

these

observations are good observations that human smuggling is taking

place-

a state felony crime.

Notes for

Discussion-

Scenario 4:

I

Not

all

of

these observations need to be present to reasonably believe human smuggling is taking

place. Any two or more of these observations would be sufficient to just ify a call to the on-call

HSU Sgt.

2) This would also apply to drop houses and stand-up loads, those caught traveling through

the

open

desert on foot with a coyote/guide.

SgL Brett Palmer

Maricopa County Sheriff s Office

uman

Smuggling Unit

Mailing Address

I 02 W. Madison Street- Phoenix, AZ 85003

602-876-1895 Office

602-526-4433 Cell

b [email protected]

From

Joseph Sousa

SHERIFFX

Sent Wednesday, January

11,

2012

11:16 AM

To Brett

Palmer SHERIFFX

Cc: l im J. casey [email protected]); Rollie Seebert SHERIFFX; Brian Sands SHERIFFX;

David

Trombi ·

SHERJFFX;

Eileen

Henry

[email protected]);

Joseph

Sousa SHERIFFX

Subject Putting out training reference the court order

Bret,

4

CaseySub 000048



28/66

Per our phone conversation write up a couple o scenarios right way and wrong way) based

on Judge Snows order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey. I will have Tim review what

you write up and have Chief Sands sign o on it Once all that is done we will get with training

reference putting something out

in

E-Learning.

Judge Snows order:

The

Court

s enjoining the MCSO from detaining any person based solely on knowledge,

without more,

that

the person is in the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the

Court

is not

enjoing MCSO from enforcing valid state laws,

or

detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable

suspicion

that

individuals

are

violating a state criminal law. Instead,

it

is enjoing MCSO from violating

federal, rights protected by the United States Constitution in the process

of

enforcing valid state law

based

on

an

incorrect understanding

of

the law.: p. 37-38.

See attached for full ruling).

Thanks,

Joe

5

CaseySub 000049



29/66

EXHIBIT 3



30/66

im

J Casey

From

Sent

To

Cc:

Subject

Attachments

Tim

J. Casey

Thursday, November 06 2014 1 27

PM

[email protected]

Liddy

Thomas; Stutz Christine ; James L. Williams; Eileen

Henry;

Jerry Sheridan -

SHERIFFX ; Bailey Steve;

John

Macintyre- SHERIFFX

FW:

Melendres Order

On

Summary Judgment

Order re MSJ 122311.pdf

ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE/WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE/NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC

RECORDS REQUEST

Steve,

Pursuant to your request today of James Williams, please find below a copy of my 12/23/11 email reporting the

12/23/11 decision/Order of the Court.

BACKGROUND

The

below email

was

likely written

in

follow-up to a telephone conversation I had with

Chief

Brian Sands after

the

decision/Order came out.

Brian

was

our (i.e., litigation counsels') point

of

primary contact in this case at that time. Because

of

the

holiday timing of the Order and whatever might take place in the field with HSU personnel until the end of the

year, Brian agreed to immediately address the Order with

HSU

and make necessary changes so there would

be

no

violations over the holidays.

t

is likely that Brian requested that I copy Lt. Joe Sousa

on

this follow-up

email. Joe was the Lt. in charge

ofHSU

at the time. Brian also was to

briefthe

Sheriff on the Order until a

joint

meeting with counsel and the Sheriff could occur after the holidays.

At

the time the email was sent,

Chief

Sheridan was still rather new to me and he was copied solely as a protocol

cour tesy because I believe he was either the Interim

Chief

Deputy or the newly appointed replacement

Chief

Deputy. Chief Macintyre was also copied solely as a courtesy so

he

was aware

of

the Order.

It

was neither

my

expectation nor understanding that Chiefs Sheridan or Macintyre would take action on this Order because HSU

and

saturation patrols were historically in the province of

Brian s

command authority, he was the one that

exclusively handled matters arising in this litigation that affected HSU/saturation patrols, and Brian was

handling this Order.

During the trial in July/August 2012, we learned that some members of the HSU were unfamiliar with the

12/23/11 Order, nothing had changed as a result

of

the Order,

and

that violations

of

he Order had occurred

between the date of its issuance and the trial. Privately, the defense team learned that Brian had not directed

any

changes in HSU. This latter point is not

of

court record

or

publicly known.

The

fact that the Order had been violated is not a surprise to the Court given the trial.

ee

5/24/14 Findings

of

Fact and

Conclusion of Law at page 114 (where the Court found, as a matter

oflaw,

that MCSO has violated

the explicit terms of this Court's preliminary injunction set forth in its December 23, 2011 order because MCSO

continues to follow the LEAR policy and the LEAR policy violates the injunction. )

WARNING ON PRIVILEGE

Please remember the email below is attorney-client privileged. Its circulation to the Monitor would certainly

waive the privilege. Its circulation to non-MCSO control group personnel could potentially waive the

privilege. Only the Sheriff and/or the

Chief

Deputy Jerry Sheridan have the authority,

in my

judgment, to

1

CaseySub 000050



31/66

determine whether any privilege is to be waived. As such, you and Capt. Bailey will need to keep in mind this

legal privilege issue in mind as you prepare your investigatory efforts and strategy.

Please contact

me

if you have any questions.

Thanks

tim

Timothy J.

Casey, Attorney at

Law

S HMITT

SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY

EVEN,

P.C.

1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014

Phone: 602.277.7000

Fax: 602.277.8663

Email: [email protected]

www.azbarristers.com

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by

the IRS,

we inform you that, to the extent this communication (or any

aft(lchment) addresses any tax matter, it was not intended or written to be and may not be} used or relied upon to i) avoid tax-related penalties under the Internal

Revenue- Code,

or

il) promote,

market

or recommend to another

party

any

transaction

or

matter addressed herein

(or

in any such attachment).

The infonnation contained

in

this

e ~ m l l

message is attorney privileged and confidential information,

intended

only for

the

use of

the

individual or entity named

above.

If

he reader of this

message

is

not

the intended recipient,

you are

hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of h s communication is

strictly prohibited. If you have received

this

communication in error, please notify

us

immediately by telephone

{602}

277-7000 or reply by email and delete or

discard the

message.

Although this

e-mail

and any attachments are believed to

be

free

of

any

virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into

which

it

is received

and opened,

it is the responsibility

of

he recipient

to

ensure that it is virus free

and

no responsibility

is

accepted by Schmitt Schneck Smyth

Casey

Even, P.C.

for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. Thank you.

From: Tim J.

Casey

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:22 PM

To: Sands Brian; John Macintyre

SHERIFFX;

Jerry Sheridan- SHERIFFX; Joseph Sousa- SHERIFFX

Cc: Liddy Thomas; [email protected]; Eileen Henry; James L Williams

Subject:

Melendres Order

On

Summary Judgement

Importance: High

Folks,

In

follow-up to my recent telephone call, attached is the Court s Order on the dueling summary judgement

motions and class certification motion.

Here is a quick summary:

1. There is NO finding as a matter of law that the MCSO is racial profiling. The racial profiling claim must

be resolved at trial (Plaintiffs motion is denied; Defendants motion is denied);

2. The PlaintiffRodrignez Fom1h Amendment Claim is dismissed

but

there racial profiling claim appears to

exist;

3.

The

Plaintiffs Melendres and Meraz and Nieto s Fom1h Amendt claims as to traffic stops will go to trial;

4.

Melendres Fom1h Amendment claim is granted on oral motion of the Plaintiffs as

to

his

DETENTION. The Court ruled that Deputy Louis DiPietro did not have reasonable suspicion that Melendres

may have violated the human smuggling statute Gn other words,

he

did not have reasonable suspicion that all

the elements of the crime may have been satisified).

2

CaseySub 000051



32/66

5 The Court is enjoining the MCSO from detaining any person based solely on knowledge, without

more, that the person is in the country without unlawful authority. To be clear, the

Court

is not enjoing

MCSO from enforcing valid state laws, or detaining invidudals when officer have reasonable suspicion

that individuals

are

violating a state criminal law. Instead, it is enjoing MCSO from violating federal,

rights protected by the United States Constitution in

the

process of enforcing valid state law based on

an

incorrect understanding ofthe law.: p. 37-38.

6 Class certification is granted.

Where do go from here:

1 Declare victory

on

plaintiffs' failure to prove (so far) racial profiling. They themselves said they would

win

as a matter of law and did not want a trial;

2.

Plaintiffs were granted only a very narrow victory

on

detention issues

3.

Nothing stops the MCSO from conducting saturation patrols or crime suppression operatios ;

4. The MCSO will appeal the narrow area ofvictory given to PlaintiffMelendres.

Timothy

J

Casey, Attorney at

Law

SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY EVEN, P.C.

1221 East Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85014

Phone: 602.277. 7()00

Fax: 602.277.8663


www.azbarristers.com

IRS

CIRCULAR 230

DISCLOSURE: To ensure

compliance

with

requirements imposed

by the IRS, we inform you

that, to the extent this communication

or

any

attachment}

addresses

any tax

maHer,

it was not intended or

wrttten

to

be

(and may not be) used or relied upon to (i) avoid tax-related penalties under

the

Internal

Revenue Code, or

(ii)

promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any such attachment).

The infonnation contained in this

~ m i l

message

is

attorney privileged and confidential infonnation, intended only for the use

of

the individual or entity named

above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of his communication is

strictly prohibited. If you have

received

this communication

in

error, please notify us immediately

by

telephone (602) 277-7000 or reply by email and delete or

discard the message. Although this e-mail and any attachments

are

believed to

be

free of

ny

virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into

which

it is received and

opened, it

is the

responsibility

of he

recipient to ensure that

it is

virus free

and

no responsibility

is

accepted

by

Schmitt Schneck Smyth

Casey Even, P.C. for any loss or damage arising in nyw y from its

use.

Thank you.

From

Chelsea Arancio

Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 4:45

PM

To Tim J casey

Subject Melendres Order

Chelsea Arancio, Paralegal

SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY EVEN, P.C.

1221 E. Osborn Road, Suite 105 Phoenix, Z 85014

Phone:

602.277.7000

Fax: 602.277.8663


3

CaseySub

000052



33/66

www azbarristers com

IRS

CIRCULAR

230 DISCLOSURE:

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed

y

the IRS, we inform

you

that, to the extent this communication (or any

attachment) addresses any tax matter, it was not intended or written to be and may not

be)

used or relied upon to i} avoid

t x ~ r e l t e d

penalties under the Internal

Revenue Code, or {ii} promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed

herein

(or

in

any such attachment).

The

infonnation contained

in

this

e ~ m i l

message is attorney privileged and confidential information,

intended

only for the use of the individual

or

entity named

above. f the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you

are

hereby notified that

any

dissemination, dlstributioli or copy of this communication is

strictly prohibited. f

you

have

received

this communication

in

error, please notify us immediately

by

telephone

602)

277 7000 or reply

by

email and delete or

discard the message. Although this

e-mail

and any attachments are believed to

be

free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into

which it is

received and

opened,

it

Is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is

virus

free and no responsibility is accepted by Schmitt Schneck Smyth

Casey

Even, P.C.

for any loss

or

damage arising in anyway from its use. Thank you.

4

CaseySub 000053



34/66

EXHIBIT 4



35/66



36/66



37/66

EXHIBIT 5



38/66



39/66



40/66

EXHIBIT 6



41/66



42/66



43/66

EXHIBIT 7



44/66

DR#: 13-104270

Date: 5/25/2013

Type of Incident: Off Duty/Other

Radio Code: 647

Location: 3325 W. Durango

Number of Search Warrants Served: 0 Search Warrant Numbers:

Number of Vehicles Towed: 0 License Plates:

Number of Vehicles Impounded: 0 License Plates:

Number of 3511 Vehicles: 0 License Plates:

Suspects Arrested (Last) (First) DOBTotal Felony

Counts

Total Misd.

Counts

Arrest

Warrants

Turned

Over to ICE

Avila Dalilia 0 0 0 0

Cansino Marcos 0 0 0 0

Cansino Miguel 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

HSU 2013 Master Log.xlsx 1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1333-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 23


45/66

DR#: 13-098000

Date: 5/22/2013

Type of Incident: Load Vehicle

Radio Code: 712S

Location: I-17 MM 235



Number of Vehicles Impounded: 0 License Plates:

Number of 3511 Vehicles: 1 License Plates: 043C4 (AZ)


Counts

Total Misd.

Counts

Arrest

Warrants

Turned

Over to ICE

Morales - Villa Rudi 2/25/1990 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Human Sm

Morales - Perez Antelmo 7/15/1989 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

De La Rosa Alberto 6/28/1989 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Perez - Lopez Mario 4/17/1985 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Barcenas - Martinez Angel 11/1/1973 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Perez - Sanchez Francisco 7/15/1979 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Perez - Lopez Maritza 4/13/1988 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Hernandez - Hernandez Juan 7/30/1961 0 0 0 1

Ramos - Gonzalez Ceferino 3/11/1972 0 0 0 1

Perez - Vasquez Mauricio 6/3/1985 0 0 0 1

Vicente - Perez Carlos 3/3/1977 0 0 0 1

Medina - Barcenas Renato 11/12/1961 0 0 0 1

Xocol - Mas Domingo 11/20/1995 0 0 0 1 JUVY

Ramirez - Sanchez Sergio 4/6/1998 0 0 0 1 JUVY

Guachiac - Suy Victor 5/17/1995 0 0 0 1

7 0 0 8




46/66

DR#: 13-094361

Date: 5/17/2013

Type of Incident: Load Vehicle

Radio Code: 712S

Location: I-17 & New River



Number of Vehicles Impounded: 1 License Plates: BA-8524 (AZ)

Number of 3511 Vehicles: 0 License Plates:


Counts

Total Misd.

Counts

Arrest

Warrants

Turned

Over to ICE

Ramirez - Lopez Ramiro 4/22/1978 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Astudillo - Sanchez Cristian 3/7/1992 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Bernal - De Mateo Yeymy 9/18/1983 1 0 0 0 (1) Count Conspirac

Cardona - Lopez Antonio 10/18/1994 0 0 0 1

Jimenez - Jimenez Raquel 2/14/1994 0 0 0 1

Lopez - Gomez Gerardo 1/25/1984 0 0 0 1

Alfredo - Martinez Luis 2/4/1996 0 0 0 1 JUVY

3 0 0 4

