1 steptoe & johnson 1 steptoe llp - amazon s3...case 2:07-cv-02513-mhm document 18 filed...

1 STEPTOE& JOHNSONLLPCollier Center

2 201 EastWashingtonStreetSuite 1600

‘ Phoenix,Arizona85004-2382

4 Telephone:602 257-5200Facsimile: 602 257-5299

David J. Bodney060656 [email protected]

PeterS. Kozinets0198567 [email protected]

KarenJ. Hartman-Tellez0211218 [email protected]

IsaacP. Hernandez0255379 [email protected]

10 Attorneysfor Plaintiffs11 Additional Attorneysfor

Plaintiffs listed on nextpage12

13 UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT

14 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15 MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGAMELENDRES, JESSICA QUITUGUA No. CV 07-02513-PHX-MHM

16 RODRIGUEZ, DAVID RODRIGUEZ,VELIA MERAZ, MANUEL NIETO, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

17 JR., on behalf of themselvesand allothers similarly situated, and SOMOS ClassAction

18 AMERICA,[Assignedto theHon. Maiy H.

19 Plaintiffs, Murguia]

20 vs.

21 JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his officialcapacityas Sheriff of MaricopaCounty,

22 Arizona, MARICOPA COUNTYSHERIFF’S OFFICE, and MARICOPA

23 COUNTY, ARIZONA,

24 Defendants.

_________________________________________________________________________

25

26

27

28

Case 2:07-cv-02513-MHM Document 18 Filed 07/16/2008 of 31

1 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLPCollier Center

2 201 East Washington Street

3Suite 1600Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382

4 Telephone: (602) 257-5200Facsimile: (602) 257-5299

5David 1. Bodney (06065)

6 [email protected] S. Kozinets (019856)

7 [email protected] 1. Hartman-Tellez (021121)

8 [email protected]

9Isaac P. Hernandez (025537)[email protected]

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 (Additional Attorneys forPlaintiffs listed on next page)

12

13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15 MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGAMELENDRES, JESSICA QUITUGUA

16 RODRIGUEZ, DAVID RODRIGUEZ,VELlA MERAZ, MANUEL NIETO,

17 JR., on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, and SOMOS

18 AMERICA,

19 Plaintiffs,

No. CV 07-02513-PHX-MHM

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Class Action)

[Assigned to the Hon. Mary H.Murguia]

20 vs.

21 JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his officialcapacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,

22 Arizona, MARICOPA COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE, and MARICOPA

23 COUNTY, ARIZONA,

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants.

1 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLPCollier Center

2 201 East Washington Street

3Suite 1600Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382

4 Telephone: (602) 257-5200Facsimile: (602) 257-5299

5David 1. Bodney (06065)

6 [email protected] S. Kozinets (019856)

7 [email protected] 1. Hartman-Tellez (021121)

8 [email protected]

9Isaac P. Hernandez (025537)[email protected]

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 (Additional Attorneys forPlaintiffs listed on next page)

12

13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

15 MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGAMELENDRES, JESSICA QUITUGUA

16 RODRIGUEZ, DAVID RODRIGUEZ,VELlA MERAZ, MANUEL NIETO,

17 JR., on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, and SOMOS

18 AMERICA,

19 Plaintiffs,

No. CV 07-02513-PHX-MHM

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

(Class Action)

[Assigned to the Hon. Mary H.Murguia]

20 vs.

21 JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, in his officialcapacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,

22 Arizona, MARICOPA COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE, and MARICOPA

23 COUNTY, ARIZONA,

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants.

1Additional Attorneys:

2 ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONAP.O. Box 17148

3 Phoenix,Arizona85011-0148


5Daniel Pochoda021979

6 dpochodaacluaz.org

7AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

8 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT39 Drumm StreetSanFrancisco, California94111


11

12 RobinGoldfaden*rgoldfadenaclu.org

13 MonicaM. RamIrez*

14 mramirezaclu.org

15 MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSEAND EDUCATIONAL FUND

16 634 South SpringStreet,11th Floor

17 Los Angeles, California90014Telephone:213 629-2512x136

18 Facsimile: 213 629-0266

19KristinaM. Campbell023 139

20 kcampbellmaldef.orgNancyRamirez*

21 nramirezmaldef.org

22

23 *pro Hac Vice Application to be filed

24

25

26

27

28

-2-Case 2:07-cv-02513-MHM Document 18 Filed 07/16/2008 of 31

11

Additional Attorneys:1


3 Phoenix, Arizona 85011-01484 Telephone: (602) 650-1854

Facsimile: (602) 650-13765

Daniel Pochoda (021979)6 [email protected]


8 IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT9 39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 9411110 Telephone: (415) 343-0770

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

12 Robin Go1dfaden*[email protected]

13 Monica M. Ramirez*14 [email protected]


16 634 South Spring Street, lIth Floor17 Los Angeles, California 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x13618 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

19Kristina M. Campbell (023139)

20 [email protected] Ramirez*

21 [email protected]

22

23 *Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

11

Additional Attorneys:1


3 Phoenix, Arizona 85011-01484 Telephone: (602) 650-1854

Facsimile: (602) 650-13765

Daniel Pochoda (021979)6 [email protected]


8 IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT9 39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 9411110 Telephone: (415) 343-0770

Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

12 Robin Go1dfaden*[email protected]

13 Monica M. Ramirez*14 [email protected]


16 634 South Spring Street, lIth Floor17 Los Angeles, California 90014

Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x13618 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

19Kristina M. Campbell (023139)

20 [email protected] Ramirez*

21 [email protected]

22

23 *Pro Hac Vice Application to be filed

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

1 Plaintiffs Manuelde JesusOrtega Melendres, JessicaQuitugua Rodriguez,

2 David Rodriguez,Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto,Jr., on behalfof themselvesandall others

3 similarly situated,andSomosAmericacollectively,"Plaintiffs" allege asfollows:

4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

5 1. This is a classactionto enforcethe Fourth andFourteenthAmendmentsto

6 the UnitedStatesConstitution;Title VI of the Civil Rights Actof 1964; andArticle II,

7 § 8 of the ArizonaConstitution. Plaintiffs seekdeclaratoryandinjunctive reliefagainst

8 Defendants Sheriff Joe Arpaio "Arpaio", the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

9 "MCSO" and MaricopaCounty, Arizonacollectively, "Defendants".

10 2. As describedbelow, Defendantshave engagedin awidespreadpatternand

11 practiceof racial profiling andother racially andethnically discriminatoiytreatmentin

12 an illegal, improper and unauthorizedattempt to "enforce" federal immigration laws

13 againstlarge numbersof Latino personsin MaricopaCounty without regard for actual

14 citizenshiporvalid immigration status.

15 3. Claiming authority undera limited agreementwith U.S. Immigration and

16 Customs Enforcement ICE that actually prohibits the practices challengedhere,

17 Defendantshavelaunchedaseriesof massiveso-called"crimesuppressionsweeps"that

18 show a law enforcement agencyoperatingwell beyondthe boundsof the law. During

19 thesesweeps,which have shownno signs of abatingsince Defendantsbeganthem in

20 September2007, large numbers of MCSO officers and volunteer "posse" members

21 underDefendants’direction andcontrol have targetedLatino personsfor investigation

22 of immigration status, using pretextual and unfoundedstops, racially motivated

23 questioning,searchesandother mistreatment,andoften baselessarrests. Defendants’

24 patternandpracticeof racialprofiling goesbeyondthesesweepsto include widespread,

25 day-to-daytargetingand mistreatmentof personswho appearto be Latino.

26 4. To curtail Defendants’ illegalconduct, Plaintiffs bring this action as

27 representativesof a classof Latino personswho, asa resultofracial profiling, havebeen

28 or will be stopped, detained, interrogated orsearchedby Arpaio and his agents in


1 Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez,

2 David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others

3 similarly situated, and Somos America (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege as follows:


5 1. This is a class action to enforce the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

6 the United States Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and Article II,

7 § 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against

8 Defendants Sheriff Joe Arpaio ("Arpaio"), the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office

9 ("MCSO") and Maricopa County, Arizona (collectively, "Defendants").

10 2. As described below, Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and

11 practice of racial profiling and other racially and ethnically discriminatory treatment in

12 an illegal, improper and unauthorized attempt to "enforce" federal immigration laws

13 against large numbers of Latino persons in Maricopa County without regard for actual

14 citizenship or valid immigration status.

15 3. Claiming authority under a limited agreement with U.S. Immigration and

16 Customs Enforcement (ICE) that actually prohibits the practices challenged here,

17 Defendants have launched a series of massive so-called "crime suppression sweeps" that

18 show a law enforcement agency operating well beyond the bounds of the law. During

19 these sweeps, which have shown no signs of abating since Defendants began them in

20 September 2007, large numbers of MCSO officers and volunteer "posse" members

21 under Defendants' direction and control have targeted Latino persons for investigation

22 of immigration status, using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially motivated

23 questioning, searches and other mistreatment, and often baseless arrests. Defendants'

24 pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond these sweeps to include widespread,

25 day-to-day targeting and mistreatment of persons who appear to be Latino.

26 4. To curtail Defendants' illegal conduct, Plaintiffs bring this action as

27 representatives of a class of Latino persons who, as a result of racial profiling, have been

28 or will be stopped, detained, interrogated or searched by Arpaio and his agents in

- 3 -

1 Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez,

2 David Rodriguez, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others

3 similarly situated, and Somos America (collectively, "Plaintiffs") allege as follows:


5 1. This is a class action to enforce the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to

6 the United States Constitution; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and Article II,

7 § 8 of the Arizona Constitution. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against

8 Defendants Sheriff Joe Arpaio ("Arpaio"), the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office

9 ("MCSO") and Maricopa County, Arizona (collectively, "Defendants").

10 2. As described below, Defendants have engaged in a widespread pattern and

11 practice of racial profiling and other racially and ethnically discriminatory treatment in

12 an illegal, improper and unauthorized attempt to "enforce" federal immigration laws

13 against large numbers of Latino persons in Maricopa County without regard for actual

14 citizenship or valid immigration status.

15 3. Claiming authority under a limited agreement with U.S. Immigration and

16 Customs Enforcement (ICE) that actually prohibits the practices challenged here,

17 Defendants have launched a series of massive so-called "crime suppression sweeps" that

18 show a law enforcement agency operating well beyond the bounds of the law. During

19 these sweeps, which have shown no signs of abating since Defendants began them in

20 September 2007, large numbers of MCSO officers and volunteer "posse" members

21 under Defendants' direction and control have targeted Latino persons for investigation

22 of immigration status, using pretextual and unfounded stops, racially motivated

23 questioning, searches and other mistreatment, and often baseless arrests. Defendants'

24 pattern and practice of racial profiling goes beyond these sweeps to include widespread,

25 day-to-day targeting and mistreatment of persons who appear to be Latino.

26 4. To curtail Defendants' illegal conduct, Plaintiffs bring this action as

27 representatives of a class of Latino persons who, as a result of racial profiling, have been

28 or will be stopped, detained, interrogated or searched by Arpaio and his agents in

- 3 -

1 moving or parkedvehiclesin MaricopaCounty. The momentPlaintiffs andthosethey

2 representwere stoppedby Defendants,they becamethe victims of "an all too familiar

3 set of circumstances- an intrusivelaw enforcementstopandseizureof innocent persons

4 on thebasis of suspicionsrooted principally in the race of the ‘suspects." Washington

5 Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1182 9th Cir. 1996. Plaintiffs seekjudicial relief to enjoin

6 Defendants’unlawful racial profiling and theattendantracially motivatedmistreatment

7 andconstitutionalinjuries thatPlaintiffs and theclasswill otherwise continueto endure.

8 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9 5. This Court has subjectmatter jurisdiction over this action pursuantto 28

10 U.S.C. § 1331 and1343. This Court hasjurisdictionover the statelaw claimspursuant

11 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court hasauthorityto grant declaratoryandinjunctive relief

12 pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 2201 and2202, andto award attorneys’ feesunder42

13 U.S.C. § 1988b.

14 6. Venueis properin this Courtpursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 1391b.

15 PARTIES

16 7. Plaintiff Manuel de JesusOrtegaMelendres"Mr. Ortega" is a citizen

17 and resident of Mexico. At the time of the events underlying this lawsuit, he was

18 lawfully present in the United States. He is of Latino descentand, by physical

19 appearance,is apersonof color. He is aretiredschoolteacher.

20 8. Plaintiffs David and Jessica Rodriguez, husband andwife, are U.S.

21 citizensandresidentsof MaricopaCounty. The Rodriguezesare of Latino descentand,

22 by physical appearance,arepersonsof color.

23 9. Plaintiffs Velia Meraz andManuel Nieto, Jr., siblings, are U.S. citizens

24 and residents of Maricopa County. They are of Latino descentand, by physical

25 appearance,are persons of color. They work for their family-ownedbusiness in

26 Phoenix.

27 10. Plaintiff Somos America/We Are America is a community-basednon

28 profit membershiporganization,comprisedof grassrootsorganizations,community and


1 moving or parked vehicles in Maricopa County. The moment Plaintiffs and those they

2 represent were stopped by Defendants, they became the victims of "an all too familiar

3 set of circumstances - an intrusive law enforcement stop and seizure of innocent persons

4 on the basis of suspicions rooted principally in the race of the 'suspects. '" Washington

5 v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1182 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs seek judicial relief to enjoin

6 Defendants' unlawful racial profiling and the attendant racially motivated mistreatment

7 and constitutional injuries that Plaintiffs and the class will otherwise continue to endure.


9 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

10 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant

11 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief

12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201 and 2202, and to award attorneys' fees under 42

13 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

14 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

15 PARTIES

16 7. Plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres ("Mr. Ortega") is a citizen


18 lawfully present in the United States. He is of Latino descent and, by physical

19 appearance, is a person of color. He is a retired school teacher.

20 8. Plaintiffs David and Jessica Rodriguez, husband and wife, are U.S.

21 citizens and residents of Maricopa County. The Rodriguezes are of Latino descent and,

22 by physical appearance, are persons of color.

23 9. Plaintiffs Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr., siblings, are U.S. citizens

24 and residents of Maricopa County. They are of Latino descent and, by physical

25 appearance, are persons of color. They work for their family-owned business in

26 Phoenix.

27 10. Plaintiff Somos AmericalWe Are America is a community-based non

28 profit membership organization, comprised of grassroots organizations, community and

- 4 -

1 moving or parked vehicles in Maricopa County. The moment Plaintiffs and those they

2 represent were stopped by Defendants, they became the victims of "an all too familiar

3 set of circumstances - an intrusive law enforcement stop and seizure of innocent persons

4 on the basis of suspicions rooted principally in the race of the 'suspects. '" Washington

5 v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1182 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs seek judicial relief to enjoin

6 Defendants' unlawful racial profiling and the attendant racially motivated mistreatment

7 and constitutional injuries that Plaintiffs and the class will otherwise continue to endure.


9 5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

10 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. This Court has jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant

11 to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This Court has authority to grant declaratory and injunctive relief

12 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2201 and 2202, and to award attorneys' fees under 42

13 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

14 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

15 PARTIES

16 7. Plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres ("Mr. Ortega") is a citizen


18 lawfully present in the United States. He is of Latino descent and, by physical

19 appearance, is a person of color. He is a retired school teacher.

20 8. Plaintiffs David and Jessica Rodriguez, husband and wife, are U.S.

21 citizens and residents of Maricopa County. The Rodriguezes are of Latino descent and,

22 by physical appearance, are persons of color.

23 9. Plaintiffs Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr., siblings, are U.S. citizens

24 and residents of Maricopa County. They are of Latino descent and, by physical

25 appearance, are persons of color. They work for their family-owned business in

26 Phoenix.

27 10. Plaintiff Somos AmericalWe Are America is a community-based non

28 profit membership organization, comprised of grassroots organizations, community and

- 4 -

1 religious leaders, labor unions, studentsand others, establishedin March 2006 to

2 mobilize for equal rights for immigrant communitiesin Arizona andfor comprehensive

3 immigration reform. Somos America’s organizational mission includesseeking to

4 combat racial discrimination directed at Latinos. Plaintiff Somos America andits

S membershave been injuredby the pattern andpractice of Defendantsalleged in this

6 Complaint.

7 11. Uponinformation andbelief, becauseof their race, colorand/orethnicity,

8 Somos America membershave been unlawfully targeted, stopped,questionedand/or

9 detainedby Defendants,andthosethey direct andcontrol, as a result of Defendants’

10 policy andpracticeof profiling andtargetingpersonswhom theybelieveto be of Latino

11 descentto determinetheir immigration status. As a result of Defendants’policy and

12 practiceand failure to provide adequatetraining and supervision, Defendants’ agents

13 have pretextually,with racial motivation and withoutadequate causestoppedvehicles

14 driven or ridden in by Somos America membersand have subjectedoccupantsto

15 discriminatory, unreasonableand burdensome questioningand other differential

16 treatmentwithout individualizedsuspicionor anyevidenceof criminal activity. Several

17 individual membershave reportedto Somosthat theyhave beenstoppedwhile driving

18 in Maricopa County by MCSO officers without good causeand subjectedto the

19 mistreatmentdescribedherein.

20 12. Becauseof Defendants’ policies and pattern andpractice of racially

21 profiling persons in Maricopa County whom theybelieve to be of Latino descent,

22 Somos America has experiencedan increasein various requestsfor assistancefrom

23 personswho have been negatively impactedby Defendants’ actions. In response,

24 Somos America andits membershave participatedin monitoring Defendants’pattern

25 and practice and assistingpersons who have been unlawfully racially profiled by

26 Defendants.SomosAmericais concernedthat it will not be able to meetadequatelythis

27 increased demandfor assistance.Alreadyits limited sourceshave been,andcontinueto

28


1 religious leaders, labor UnIons, students and others, established in March 2006 to

2 mobilize for equal rights for immigrant communities in Arizona and for comprehensive

3 immigration reform. Somos America's organizational mission includes seeking to

4 combat racial discrimination directed at Latinos. Plaintiff Somos America and its

5 members have been injured by the pattern and practice of Defendants alleged in this

6 Complaint.

7 11. Upon information and belief, because of their race, color and/or ethnicity,

8 Somos America members have been unlawfully targeted, stopped, questioned and/or

9 detained by Defendants, and those they direct and control, as a result of Defendants'

10 policy and practice of profiling and targeting persons whom they believe to be of Latino

11 descent to determine their immigration status. As a result of Defendants' policy and

12 practice and failure to provide adequate training and supervision, Defendants' agents

13 have pretextually, with racial motivation and without adequate cause stopped vehicles

14 driven or ridden in by Somos America members and have subjected occupants to

15 discriminatory, umeasonable and burdensome questioning and other differential

16 treatment without individualized suspicion or any evidence of criminal activity. Several

17 individual members have reported to Somos that they have been stopped while driving

18 in Maricopa County by MCSO officers without good cause and subjected to the

19 mistreatment described herein.

20 12. Because of Defendants' policies and pattern and practice of racially

21 profiling persons in Maricopa County whom they believe to be of Latino descent,

22 Somos America has experienced an increase in various requests for assistance from

23 persons who have been negatively impacted by Defendants' actions. In response,

24 Somos America and its members have participated in monitoring Defendants' pattern

25 and practice and assisting persons who have been unlawfully racially profiled by

26 Defendants. Somos America is concerned that it will not be able to meet adequately this

27 increased demand for assistance. Already its limited sources have been, and continue to

28

- 5 -

1 religious leaders, labor UnIons, students and others, established in March 2006 to

2 mobilize for equal rights for immigrant communities in Arizona and for comprehensive

3 immigration reform. Somos America's organizational mission includes seeking to

4 combat racial discrimination directed at Latinos. Plaintiff Somos America and its

5 members have been injured by the pattern and practice of Defendants alleged in this

6 Complaint.

7 11. Upon information and belief, because of their race, color and/or ethnicity,

8 Somos America members have been unlawfully targeted, stopped, questioned and/or

9 detained by Defendants, and those they direct and control, as a result of Defendants'

10 policy and practice of profiling and targeting persons whom they believe to be of Latino

11 descent to determine their immigration status. As a result of Defendants' policy and

12 practice and failure to provide adequate training and supervision, Defendants' agents

13 have pretextually, with racial motivation and without adequate cause stopped vehicles

14 driven or ridden in by Somos America members and have subjected occupants to

15 discriminatory, umeasonable and burdensome questioning and other differential

16 treatment without individualized suspicion or any evidence of criminal activity. Several

17 individual members have reported to Somos that they have been stopped while driving

18 in Maricopa County by MCSO officers without good cause and subjected to the

19 mistreatment described herein.

20 12. Because of Defendants' policies and pattern and practice of racially

21 profiling persons in Maricopa County whom they believe to be of Latino descent,

22 Somos America has experienced an increase in various requests for assistance from

23 persons who have been negatively impacted by Defendants' actions. In response,

24 Somos America and its members have participated in monitoring Defendants' pattern

25 and practice and assisting persons who have been unlawfully racially profiled by

26 Defendants. Somos America is concerned that it will not be able to meet adequately this

27 increased demand for assistance. Already its limited sources have been, and continue to

28

- 5 -

1 be, divertedand drainedas a result of Defendants’policies andpracticesand the harm

2 theycause.

3 13. DefendantJosephM. Arpaio is the Sheriffof MaricopaCounty, Arizona,

4 andis suedin his official capacity. He is the final decisionmakerfor MaricopaCounty

5 in the area of law enforcement,and is responsiblefor setting and implementingthe

6 policiesandpracticesof the MC SO, includingbut not limitedto creatingand regulating

7 department policiesregarding thestopsandarrestsand relatedtreatmentof individuals

8 in motor vehiclesin MaricopaCounty.

9 14. DefendantArpaio, on behalfof the MCSO andwith the MaricopaCounty

10 Board of Supervisors,is responsiblefor entering into a Memorandumof Agreement

11 MOA with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement ICE that purports to

12 authorizeenforcementof federal immigration laws by speciallynominated andcross-

13 trained MCSO Sheriff’s deputies. Defendant Arpaio, in his role as Sheriff, is

14 responsiblefor implementationandadministrationof the MOA. He is also responsible

15 for directing MCSO immigration enforcementactivity that is legally unauthorized and

16 conductedpursuantto his policy andpracticeofracialprofiling.

17 15. Upon information and belief, Arpaio participated in the authorization,

18 planningand supervisionof the actionsof the MCSO employees involvedin the events

19 describedin this Complaint. Upon information andbelief, Arpaio is alsoresponsiblefor

20 recruiting, training, supervisingand managing membersof the MCSO’s volunteer

21 "posse"thathave carriedout Defendants’policiesandpracticesandhaveparticipatedin

22 the events describedherein withoutadequateselectionprocesses,proper authority, or

23 adequatetraining andsupervision.

24 16. Upon information andbelief, Arpaio is also responsiblefor the institution

25 of a telephonic "hotline" used to generate and pursue "tips" about suspected

26 immigration violationsnotwithstanding thecomplexityof immigration law, the general

27 lack of training, knowledge,andexperienceamongthe public in immigration law, and

28 the unfortunatereality that such a hotline invites individuals to equaterace with


1 be, diverted and drained as a result of Defendants' policies and practices and the harm

2 they cause.

3 13. Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona,

4 and is sued in his official capacity. He is the final decisionmaker for Maricopa County

5 in the area of law enforcement, and is responsible for setting and implementing the

6 policies and practices of the MCSO, including but not limited to creating and regulating

7 department policies regarding the stops and arrests and related treatment of individuals

8 in motor vehicles in Maricopa County.

9 14. Defendant Arpaio, on behalf of the MCSO and with the Maricopa County

10 Board of Supervisors, is responsible for entering into a Memorandum of Agreement

11 (MOA) with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that purports to

12 authorize enforcement of federal immigration laws by specially nominated and cross

13 trained MCSO Sheriff s deputies. Defendant Arpaio, in his role as Sheriff, is

14 responsible for implementation and administration of the MOA. He is also responsible

15 for directing MCSO immigration enforcement activity that is legally unauthorized and

16 conducted pursuant to his policy and practice of racial profiling.


18 planning and supervision of the actions of the MCSO employees involved in the events

19 described in this Complaint. Upon information and belief, Arpaio is also responsible for

20 recruiting, training, supervising and managing members of the MCSO's volunteer

21 "posse" that have carried out Defendants' policies and practices and have participated in

22 the events described herein without adequate selection processes, proper authority, or

23 adequate training and supervision.

24 16. Upon information and belief, Arpaio is also responsible for the institution


26 immigration violations notwithstanding the complexity of immigration law, the general

27 lack of training, knowledge, and experience among the public in immigration law, and

28 the unfortunate reality that such a hotline invites individuals to equate race with

- 6 -

1 be, diverted and drained as a result of Defendants' policies and practices and the harm

2 they cause.

3 13. Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona,

4 and is sued in his official capacity. He is the final decisionmaker for Maricopa County

5 in the area of law enforcement, and is responsible for setting and implementing the

6 policies and practices of the MCSO, including but not limited to creating and regulating

7 department policies regarding the stops and arrests and related treatment of individuals

8 in motor vehicles in Maricopa County.

9 14. Defendant Arpaio, on behalf of the MCSO and with the Maricopa County

10 Board of Supervisors, is responsible for entering into a Memorandum of Agreement

11 (MOA) with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that purports to

12 authorize enforcement of federal immigration laws by specially nominated and cross

13 trained MCSO Sheriff s deputies. Defendant Arpaio, in his role as Sheriff, is

14 responsible for implementation and administration of the MOA. He is also responsible

15 for directing MCSO immigration enforcement activity that is legally unauthorized and

16 conducted pursuant to his policy and practice of racial profiling.


18 planning and supervision of the actions of the MCSO employees involved in the events

19 described in this Complaint. Upon information and belief, Arpaio is also responsible for

20 recruiting, training, supervising and managing members of the MCSO's volunteer

21 "posse" that have carried out Defendants' policies and practices and have participated in

22 the events described herein without adequate selection processes, proper authority, or

23 adequate training and supervision.

24 16. Upon information and belief, Arpaio is also responsible for the institution


26 immigration violations notwithstanding the complexity of immigration law, the general

27 lack of training, knowledge, and experience among the public in immigration law, and

28 the unfortunate reality that such a hotline invites individuals to equate race with

- 6 -

1 immigration statusand allows someto pursuepersonal grievancesby way of a hotline

2 complaint. Arpaio established andhas overseen an "Illegal Immigration and

3 Interdiction" unit, known as the "Triple I Unit," to pursue hotlinetips and other

4 immigrationenforcementactivitiescarriedout in the mannerdescribedherein.

5 17. Upon information andbelief, Arpaio failed to train MCSO personnel and

6 volunteers adequatelyandto promulgate appropriate policiesto prevent theunlawful

7 stops of Plaintiffs and class members basedon impermissibleracial profiling and

8 arbitraiy andunreasonablestopsandseizures. Arpaio has alsofailed to developcriteria

9 to avoid the abuseof the uncheckeddiscretionhe has affordedMCSO personnel,and

10 has established,implemented andenforcedillegal and unconstitutionalpolicies and

11 practicesthat have causedthe unlawful treatmentof Plaintiffs and classmembersby

12 MCSO Deputiesandotherpersonneland"posse"members.

13 18. Defendant MCSO is a law enforcement agencyin Maricopa County.

14 Uponinformation andbelief, MCSOprogramsandactivitiesreceivefinancial assistance

15 through federal grantsand other contributionsfrom the U.S. Departmentof Justice

16 "DOJ" and other federal agencies. As a recipient of federal financial assistance,

17 MCSO is legally requiredto provide andconductits programsandactivitiesin a racially

18 andethnicallynon-discriminatorymanner.

19 19. DefendantMaricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision of the

20 Stateof Arizona thatcan sueandbe suedin its own name. Uponinformation andbelief,

21 Maricopa County programs and activities receive federalfinancial assistance. The

22 County is therefore legallyrequiredto conductits programsandactivities in a racially

23 andethnically non-discriminatorymanner. By both its action andinaction, Defendant

24 MaricopaCounty has agreedwith, accepted,acquiescedin, and sanctioned Defendant

25 Arpaio’s focus on supposedenforcementof federal civil immigration laws at the

26 expenseof pursuit of criminal conduct and has done the same with regard to

27 Defendants’policy andpracticeof employing illegal and improper racial profiling and

28 other discriminatoiy treatment of Plaintiffs and other Latino persons in Maricopa


1 immigration status and allows some to pursue personal grievances by way of a hotline

2 complaint. Arpaio established and has overseen an "Illegal Immigration and

3 Interdiction" unit, known as the "Triple I Unit," to pursue hotline tips and other

4 immigration enforcement activities carried out in the manner described herein.

5 17. Upon information and belief, Arpaio failed to train MCSO personnel and

6 volunteers adequately and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent the unlawful

7 stops of Plaintiffs and class members based on impermissible racial profiling and

8 arbitrary and umeasonable stops and seizures. Arpaio has also failed to develop criteria

9 to avoid the abuse of the unchecked discretion he has afforded MCSO personnel, and

10 has established, implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and

11 practices that have caused the unlawful treatment of Plaintiffs and class members by

12 MCSO Deputies and other personnel and "posse" members.

13 18. Defendant MCSO is a law enforcement agency III Maricopa County.

14 Upon information and belief, MCSO programs and activities receive financial assistance

15 through federal grants and other contributions from the U.S. Department of Justice

16 ("DOJ") and other federal agencies. As a recipient of federal financial assistance,

17 MCSO is legally required to provide and conduct its programs and activities in a racially

18 and ethnically non-discriminatory manner.

19 19. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision of the

20 State of Arizona that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief,

21 Maricopa County programs and activities receive federal financial assistance. The

22 County is therefore legally required to conduct its programs and activities in a racially

23 and ethnically non-discriminatory manner. By both its action and inaction, Defendant

24 Maricopa County has agreed with, accepted, acquiesced in, and sanctioned Defendant

25 Arpaio' s focus on supposed enforcement of federal civil immigration laws at the

26 expense of pursuit of criminal conduct and has done the same with regard to

27 Defendants' policy and practice of employing illegal and improper racial profiling and

28 other discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and other Latino persons in Maricopa

- 7 -

1 immigration status and allows some to pursue personal grievances by way of a hotline

2 complaint. Arpaio established and has overseen an "Illegal Immigration and

3 Interdiction" unit, known as the "Triple I Unit," to pursue hotline tips and other

4 immigration enforcement activities carried out in the manner described herein.

5 17. Upon information and belief, Arpaio failed to train MCSO personnel and

6 volunteers adequately and to promulgate appropriate policies to prevent the unlawful

7 stops of Plaintiffs and class members based on impermissible racial profiling and

8 arbitrary and umeasonable stops and seizures. Arpaio has also failed to develop criteria

9 to avoid the abuse of the unchecked discretion he has afforded MCSO personnel, and

10 has established, implemented and enforced illegal and unconstitutional policies and

11 practices that have caused the unlawful treatment of Plaintiffs and class members by

12 MCSO Deputies and other personnel and "posse" members.

13 18. Defendant MCSO is a law enforcement agency III Maricopa County.

14 Upon information and belief, MCSO programs and activities receive financial assistance

15 through federal grants and other contributions from the U.S. Department of Justice

16 ("DOJ") and other federal agencies. As a recipient of federal financial assistance,

17 MCSO is legally required to provide and conduct its programs and activities in a racially

18 and ethnically non-discriminatory manner.

19 19. Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona, is a political subdivision of the

20 State of Arizona that can sue and be sued in its own name. Upon information and belief,

21 Maricopa County programs and activities receive federal financial assistance. The

22 County is therefore legally required to conduct its programs and activities in a racially

23 and ethnically non-discriminatory manner. By both its action and inaction, Defendant

24 Maricopa County has agreed with, accepted, acquiesced in, and sanctioned Defendant

25 Arpaio' s focus on supposed enforcement of federal civil immigration laws at the

26 expense of pursuit of criminal conduct and has done the same with regard to

27 Defendants' policy and practice of employing illegal and improper racial profiling and

28 other discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs and other Latino persons in Maricopa

- 7 -

1 County. In fact, the Chairof the MaricopaCounty Boardof Supervisorshaspraisedas

2 good law enforcementthesepolicies andpracticesof DefendantArpaio in the face of

3 large-scale criticismthat theyspecificallytargetLatinos.

4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

5 Limits on Defendants’ Authority to Perform Immi2ration Functions

6 20. In or around Januaiy 2007, DefendantsMaricopa County and Arpaio

7 enteredinto an MOA with ICE that providedfor amaximumof 160 nominated, trained

8 and certified personnelof the MCSO to perform certain immigration enforcement

9 functions in limited circumstances. A true copy of the MOA is attachedhereto as

10 Exhibit A.

11 21. Section287g of the Immigrationand NationalityAct, 8 U.S.C. § 1357g

12 authorizesthe Secretaryof theU.S. Departmentof HomelandSecurity,of which ICE is

13 a part, to enterinto MOAs with stateand local law enforcementagenciesto train and

14 permit designatedofficers to perform certain immigration enforcementfunctions.

15 Under such agreements,the designatedstate and local officers are to be trained and

16 supervisedby appropriateICE officers.

17 22. Accordingto ICE, "[t]he 287g programis designedto enablestateand

18 local law enforcementpersonnel, incidentalto a lawful arrestand during thecourseof

19 their normal duties, to questionand detain individuals for potential removal from the

20 UnitedStates,if theseindividuals are identified asundocumentedillegal aliensand they

21 are suspectedof committing a state crime." Fact Sheet, Section 287g of the

22 Immigration and Nationalily Act September 24, 2007, at

23 http://www. ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/factsheet287gprogover.htm. A true copy of the

24 Fact Sheetis attachedheretoasExhibit B.

25 23. ICE has made clearthat "[t]he 287g programis not designedto allow

26 stateandlocal agenciesto perform randomstreet operations,"and "is notdesignedto

27 impact issuessuch as excessive occupancyand day laborer activities." Id. ICE

28 guidelines state, "Police can only use 287g authority when people are taken into


1 County. In fact, the Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has praised as

2 good law enforcement these policies and practices of Defendant Arpaio in the face of

3 large-scale criticism that they specifically target Latinos.


5 Limits on Defendants' Authority to Perform Immigration Functions

6 20. In or around January 2007, Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio

7 entered into an MOA with ICE that provided for a maximum of 160 nominated, trained

8 and certified personnel of the MCSO to perform certain immigration enforcement

9 functions in limited circumstances. (A true copy of the MOA is attached hereto as

10 Exhibit A.)

11 21. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)

12 authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is

13 a part, to enter into MOAs with state and local law enforcement agencies to train and

14 permit designated officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.

15 Under such agreements, the designated state and local officers are to be trained and

16 supervised by appropriate ICE officers.

17 22. According to ICE, "[t]he 287(g) program is designed to enable state and

18 local law enforcement personnel, incidental to a lawful arrest and during the course of

19 their normal duties, to question and detain individuals for potential removal from the

20 United States, if these individuals are identified as undocumented illegal aliens and they

21 are suspected of committing a state crime." Fact Sheet, Section 287(g) of the

22 Immigration and Nationality Act (September 24, 2007), at

23 http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/factsheet287gprogover.htm. (A true copy of the

24 Fact Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

25 23. ICE has made clear that "[t]he 287(g) program is not designed to allow

26 state and local agencies to perform random street operations," and "is not designed to

27 impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day laborer activities." Id. ICE

28 guidelines state, "Police can only use 287(g) authority when people are taken into

- 8 -

1 County. In fact, the Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has praised as

2 good law enforcement these policies and practices of Defendant Arpaio in the face of

3 large-scale criticism that they specifically target Latinos.


5 Limits on Defendants' Authority to Perform Immigration Functions

6 20. In or around January 2007, Defendants Maricopa County and Arpaio

7 entered into an MOA with ICE that provided for a maximum of 160 nominated, trained

8 and certified personnel of the MCSO to perform certain immigration enforcement

9 functions in limited circumstances. (A true copy of the MOA is attached hereto as

10 Exhibit A.)

11 21. Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)

12 authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is

13 a part, to enter into MOAs with state and local law enforcement agencies to train and

14 permit designated officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.

15 Under such agreements, the designated state and local officers are to be trained and

16 supervised by appropriate ICE officers.

17 22. According to ICE, "[t]he 287(g) program is designed to enable state and

18 local law enforcement personnel, incidental to a lawful arrest and during the course of

19 their normal duties, to question and detain individuals for potential removal from the

20 United States, if these individuals are identified as undocumented illegal aliens and they

21 are suspected of committing a state crime." Fact Sheet, Section 287(g) of the

22 Immigration and Nationality Act (September 24, 2007), at

23 http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/factsheet287gprogover.htm. (A true copy of the

24 Fact Sheet is attached hereto as Exhibit B.)

25 23. ICE has made clear that "[t]he 287(g) program is not designed to allow

26 state and local agencies to perform random street operations," and "is not designed to

27 impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day laborer activities." Id. ICE

28 guidelines state, "Police can only use 287(g) authority when people are taken into

- 8 -

1 custodyas a resultof violating stateor local criminal law. Police cannotrandomlyask

2 for a person’s immigrationstatusor conduct immigrationraids," and"[officers may

3 only] use their authority when dealing with someonewho is suspectedof a state

4 crime that is more than a traffic offense." Id. emphasesadded.

5 24. Part I of the MOA provides that "the exercise of the immigration

6 enforcement authority granted under thisMOA to participatingLEA [Law Enforcement

7 Agency] personnelshall occuronly asprovidedin this MOA." PartV provides that the

8 immigration enforcement authority grantedto Defendantsis "subject to the limitations

9 containedin thisMOA." Ex. A.

10 25. Part XV of the MOA providesin part that "[p]articipatingLEA personnel

11 who performcertain federalimmigration enforcement functionsareboundby all federal

12 civil rights statutesandregulations,including the U.S. Departmentof Justice‘Guidance

13 RegardingThe Use Of RaceBy FederalLaw EnforcementAgencies’ datedJune2003."

14 Ex.A.

15 26. The DOJ Guidancestates: "‘Racial profiling’ at its core concernsthe

16 invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conductingstops,searchesandother

17 law enforcementinvestigative procedures." Itnotes that "[r]acial profiling in law

18 enforcementis not merely wrong,but also ineffective." A true copy of the DOJ

19 Guidanceis attachedheretoasExhibit C.

20 27. The DOJ Guidancedirects that "[i]n making routine or spontaneouslaw

21 enforcement decisions, such as ordinary traffic stops, Federal law enforcement

22 officers may not userace or ethnicity to any degree,except that officers may rely on

23 raceandethnicity in a specific suspectdescription." Ex. C emphasesadded.

24 28. Arpaio hasutilized deputiestrainedunder theMOA - and, on information

25 andbelief has alsousedother MCSO deputiesandotherpersonnel andvolunteerswho

26 arenot speciallynominated andcross-trainedto performimmigration duties - on and/or

27 in supportof his "Triple I Unit." In doing so andin otherways,he has violated the

28 applicableICE guidelinesas towhat a287g agreementmay allow.


1 custody as a result of violating state or local criminal law. Police cannot randomly ask

2 for a person's immigration status or conduct immigration raids," and "[officers may

3 only] use their authority when dealing with someone who is suspected of a state

4 crime that is more than a traffic offense." Id. (emphases added).


6 enforcement authority granted under this MOA to participating LEA [Law Enforcement

7 Agency] personnel shall occur only as provided in this MOA." Part V provides that the

8 immigration enforcement authority granted to Defendants is "subject to the limitations

9 contained in this MOA." (Ex. A.)

10 25. Part XV of the MOA provides in part that "[p]articipating LEA personnel

11 who perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions are bound by all federal

12 civil rights statutes and regulations, including the U.S. Department of Justice 'Guidance

13 Regarding The Use Of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies' dated June 2003."

14 (Ex. A.)

15 26. The DOJ Guidance states: "'Racial profiling' at its core concerns the

16 invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other

17 law enforcement investigative procedures." It notes that "[r]acial profiling in law

18 enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective." (A true copy of the DOJ

19 Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)

20 27. The DOJ Guidance directs that "[i]n making routine or spontaneous law


22 officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on

23 race and ethnicity in a specific suspect description." (Ex. C (emphases added).)

24 28. Arpaio has utilized deputies trained under the MOA - and, on information

25 and belief has also used other MCSO deputies and other personnel and volunteers who

26 are not specially nominated and cross-trained to perform immigration duties - on and/or

27 in support of his "Triple I Unit." In doing so (and in other ways), he has violated the

28 applicable ICE guidelines as to what a 287(g) agreement may allow.

- 9 -

1 custody as a result of violating state or local criminal law. Police cannot randomly ask

2 for a person's immigration status or conduct immigration raids," and "[officers may

3 only] use their authority when dealing with someone who is suspected of a state

4 crime that is more than a traffic offense." Id. (emphases added).


6 enforcement authority granted under this MOA to participating LEA [Law Enforcement

7 Agency] personnel shall occur only as provided in this MOA." Part V provides that the

8 immigration enforcement authority granted to Defendants is "subject to the limitations

9 contained in this MOA." (Ex. A.)

10 25. Part XV of the MOA provides in part that "[p]articipating LEA personnel

11 who perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions are bound by all federal

12 civil rights statutes and regulations, including the U.S. Department of Justice 'Guidance

13 Regarding The Use Of Race By Federal Law Enforcement Agencies' dated June 2003."

14 (Ex. A.)

15 26. The DOJ Guidance states: "'Racial profiling' at its core concerns the

16 invidious use of race or ethnicity as a criterion in conducting stops, searches and other

17 law enforcement investigative procedures." It notes that "[r]acial profiling in law

18 enforcement is not merely wrong, but also ineffective." (A true copy of the DOJ

19 Guidance is attached hereto as Exhibit C.)

20 27. The DOJ Guidance directs that "[i]n making routine or spontaneous law


22 officers may not use race or ethnicity to any degree, except that officers may rely on

23 race and ethnicity in a specific suspect description." (Ex. C (emphases added).)

24 28. Arpaio has utilized deputies trained under the MOA - and, on information

25 and belief has also used other MCSO deputies and other personnel and volunteers who

26 are not specially nominated and cross-trained to perform immigration duties - on and/or

27 in support of his "Triple I Unit." In doing so (and in other ways), he has violated the

28 applicable ICE guidelines as to what a 287(g) agreement may allow.

- 9 -

1 29. In short, Defendants’ authority to enforce federalimmigration law is

2 constrained and limitedby the U.S. and ArizonaConstitutions, federaland state law,

3 and the MOA. Defendantshave grossly exceededthese limits by devising and

4 implementingan invidious and unconstitutionalcustom, policy andpractice of racial

5 profiling toward Latino personsin MaricopaCounty andan unconstitutional policy and

6 practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers, pretextuallyand without

7 individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome,

8 stigmatizing and injurious treatmentonce stopped. Consequently,Defendantshave

9 violated the constitutional and civil rights of Plaintiffs and countless other Latino

10 membersof the MaricopaCounty community.

11 Defendants’ RacialProfilin! and Immi2ration "Sweeps"

12 30. Specifically, Defendantshave adoptedan unlawful, racially-biased policy

13 of stopping, detaining,questioningand/or searchingpersonsin vehicles in Maricopa

14 County who are or appearto be Latino to interrogate them about their perceived

15 immigration status basedon nothing more than their race, color and/or ethnicity.

16 Defendantshaveimplemented this policyin MaricopaCountyin part througha seriesof

17 so-called"crime suppressionsweeps"that target personswho appearto be Latino for

18 stops, questioning, arrests and other differential treatmentthat is not based on a

19 constitutionallyacceptablelevel of causeor suspicionand thatis in any event racially

20 motivated.

21 31. However, as exemplified by the stops of several Plaintiffs described

22 below, this racially-motivated and biased policyof targetingpersonswho appearto be

23 Latino for immigration enforcement through pretextual and unfoundedstops,

24 interrogation, and arrestsalso applies andis followed as a general matterby MCSO

25 personneland is not limited to when "sweeps" are being conducted. Personswho

26 appearto be Latino, when driving or riding in a car, are at risk of being stoppedand

27 subjectedto burdensome,time-consuming,harassingand stigmatizing interrogation,

28 searchesand other mistreatment thatmay culminate in an arrestand furtherdetention.

- 10 -


1 29. In short, Defendants' authority to enforce federal immigration law is

2 constrained and limited by the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, federal and state law,

3 and the MOA. Defendants have grossly exceeded these limits by devising and

4 implementing an invidious and unconstitutional custom, policy and practice of racial

5 profiling toward Latino persons in Maricopa County and an unconstitutional policy and

6 practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers, pretextually and without


8 stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped. Consequently, Defendants have


10 members of the Maricopa County community.

11 Defendants' Racial Profiling and Immigration "Sweeps"

12 30. Specifically, Defendants have adopted an unlawful, racially-biased policy

13 of stopping, detaining, questioning and/or searching persons in vehicles in Maricopa

14 County who are or appear to be Latino to interrogate them about their perceived

15 immigration status based on nothing more than their race, color and/or ethnicity.

16 Defendants have implemented this policy in Maricopa County in part through a series of

17 so-called "crime suppression sweeps" that target persons who appear to be Latino for

18 stops, questioning, arrests and other differential treatment that is not based on a

19 constitutionally acceptable level of cause or suspicion and that is in any event racially

20 motivated.


22 below, this racially-motivated and biased policy of targeting persons who appear to be

23 Latino for immigration enforcement through pretextual and unfounded stops,

24 interrogation, and arrests also applies and is followed as a general matter by MCSO

25 personnel and is not limited to when "sweeps" are being conducted. Persons who

26 appear to be Latino, when driving or riding in a car, are at risk of being stopped and

27 subjected to burdensome, time-consuming, harassing and stigmatizing interrogation,

28 searches and other mistreatment that may culminate in an arrest and further detention.

- 10-

1 29. In short, Defendants' authority to enforce federal immigration law is

2 constrained and limited by the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, federal and state law,

3 and the MOA. Defendants have grossly exceeded these limits by devising and

4 implementing an invidious and unconstitutional custom, policy and practice of racial

5 profiling toward Latino persons in Maricopa County and an unconstitutional policy and

6 practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers, pretextually and without


8 stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped. Consequently, Defendants have


10 members of the Maricopa County community.

11 Defendants' Racial Profiling and Immigration "Sweeps"

12 30. Specifically, Defendants have adopted an unlawful, racially-biased policy

13 of stopping, detaining, questioning and/or searching persons in vehicles in Maricopa

14 County who are or appear to be Latino to interrogate them about their perceived

15 immigration status based on nothing more than their race, color and/or ethnicity.

16 Defendants have implemented this policy in Maricopa County in part through a series of

17 so-called "crime suppression sweeps" that target persons who appear to be Latino for

18 stops, questioning, arrests and other differential treatment that is not based on a

19 constitutionally acceptable level of cause or suspicion and that is in any event racially

20 motivated.


22 below, this racially-motivated and biased policy of targeting persons who appear to be

23 Latino for immigration enforcement through pretextual and unfounded stops,

24 interrogation, and arrests also applies and is followed as a general matter by MCSO

25 personnel and is not limited to when "sweeps" are being conducted. Persons who

26 appear to be Latino, when driving or riding in a car, are at risk of being stopped and

27 subjected to burdensome, time-consuming, harassing and stigmatizing interrogation,

28 searches and other mistreatment that may culminate in an arrest and further detention.

- 10-

1 These stops andinterrogationsare frequentlyunsupportedby reasonable suspicionor

2 probablecause,andin anyevent,arepretextual and raciallymotivated.

3 32. Indeed, upon information and belief, Caucasiandrivers and passengers

4 involvedin the sameor similar actsor allegedviolations aretreated differently and their

5 vehicles stopped at much lower rates than similarly situated Latino drivers and

6 passengerspursuantto MCSO policy andpractice. Further, Caucasiandrivers and

7 passengersare treated differently andless intrusively anddetainedfor shorter periodsof

8 time after their vehicles are stoppedby MCSO personnelthan Latino drivers and

9 passengersafter beingstopped. Latino occupantsare alsotreated differently andmore

10 intrusivelyby MCSOthanCaucasian occupantsofthe samevehicle.

11 33. Defendants’ patternand practice of racial profiling is evidenced by

12 numerous statementsof Arpaio. For example, Arpaio has claimed that physical

13 appearancealone is sufficient to question an individual regarding theirimmigration

14 status. SeeHoward Witt, "Does CrackdownCross Line?Arizona Efforts Stir Racial

15 Profiling Claims," ChicagoTribune, May 26, 2008.

16 34. At a press conferencelast year, he describedhis operationsas a "pure

17 program" designed"to go after illegals, not the crime first." See Richard Ruelas,

18 "Arpaio Stays Silent on RealICE Plan," TheArizonaRepublic,March 2, 2007, at BlO.

19 Arpaio’s practiceis to "go afterillegals. . . . You go afterthem, andyou lock them up."

20 Id. Arpaio and MaricopaCounty do not have legalauthority underfederal or statelaw

21 or theMOA to engagein suchconduct,let aloneto do so in adiscriminatoiymanner.

22 35. Defendantshave targetedspecific areasof Maricopa County that have

23 high Latino populations orlarge numbersof Latino day laborersfor pretextual "crime

24 suppression operations."On information andbelief, large numbersof MCSO deputies

25 andhundredsof volunteer"posse"members, assistedby membersof motorcycleclubs

26 suchas the "AmericanFreedom Riders,"have beenconcentratedin such areasduring

27 these"sweeps." See, e.g.,PressRelease, MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff’s

28

- 11-Case 2:07-cv-02513-MHM Document 18 Filed 07/16/2008 of 31

1 These stops and interrogations are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or

2 probable cause, and in any event, are pretextual and racially motivated.

3 32. Indeed, upon information and belief, Caucasian drivers and passengers

4 involved in the same or similar acts or alleged violations are treated differently and their


6 passengers pursuant to MCSO policy and practice. Further, Caucasian drivers and

7 passengers are treated differently and less intrusively and detained for shorter periods of

8 time after their vehicles are stopped by MCSO personnel than Latino drivers and

9 passengers after being stopped. Latino occupants are also treated differently and more

10 intrusively by MCSO than Caucasian occupants of the same vehicle.

11 33. Defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling IS evidenced by

12 numerous statements of Arpaio. For example, Arpaio has claimed that physical

13 appearance alone is sufficient to question an individual regarding their immigration

14 status. See Howard Witt, "Does Crackdown Cross Line? Arizona Efforts Stir Racial

15 Profiling Claims," Chicago Tribune, May 26,2008.

16 34. At a press conference last year, he described his operations as a "pure

17 program" designed "to go after illegals, not the crime first." See Richard Ruelas,

18 "Arpaio Stays Silent on Real ICE Plan," The Arizona Republic, March 2, 2007, at BIO.

19 Arpaio's practice is to "go after illegals .... You go after them, and you lock them up."

20 Id. Arpaio and Maricopa County do not have legal authority under federal or state law

21 or the MOA to engage in such conduct, let alone to do so in a discriminatory manner.

22 35. Defendants have targeted specific areas of Maricopa County that have

23 high Latino populations or large numbers of Latino day laborers for pretextual "crime

24 suppression operations." On information and belief, large numbers of MCSO deputies

25 and hundreds of volunteer "posse" members, assisted by members of motorcycle clubs

26 such as the "American Freedom Riders," have been concentrated in such areas during

27 these "sweeps." See, e.g., Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs

28

- 11 -

1 These stops and interrogations are frequently unsupported by reasonable suspicion or

2 probable cause, and in any event, are pretextual and racially motivated.

3 32. Indeed, upon information and belief, Caucasian drivers and passengers

4 involved in the same or similar acts or alleged violations are treated differently and their


6 passengers pursuant to MCSO policy and practice. Further, Caucasian drivers and

7 passengers are treated differently and less intrusively and detained for shorter periods of

8 time after their vehicles are stopped by MCSO personnel than Latino drivers and

9 passengers after being stopped. Latino occupants are also treated differently and more

10 intrusively by MCSO than Caucasian occupants of the same vehicle.

11 33. Defendants' pattern and practice of racial profiling IS evidenced by

12 numerous statements of Arpaio. For example, Arpaio has claimed that physical

13 appearance alone is sufficient to question an individual regarding their immigration

14 status. See Howard Witt, "Does Crackdown Cross Line? Arizona Efforts Stir Racial

15 Profiling Claims," Chicago Tribune, May 26,2008.

16 34. At a press conference last year, he described his operations as a "pure

17 program" designed "to go after illegals, not the crime first." See Richard Ruelas,

18 "Arpaio Stays Silent on Real ICE Plan," The Arizona Republic, March 2, 2007, at BIO.

19 Arpaio's practice is to "go after illegals .... You go after them, and you lock them up."

20 Id. Arpaio and Maricopa County do not have legal authority under federal or state law

21 or the MOA to engage in such conduct, let alone to do so in a discriminatory manner.

22 35. Defendants have targeted specific areas of Maricopa County that have

23 high Latino populations or large numbers of Latino day laborers for pretextual "crime

24 suppression operations." On information and belief, large numbers of MCSO deputies

25 and hundreds of volunteer "posse" members, assisted by members of motorcycle clubs

26 such as the "American Freedom Riders," have been concentrated in such areas during

27 these "sweeps." See, e.g., Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs

28

- 11 -

1 Operationin GuadalupeReturns:Arpaio DisregardsMayor Jimenez’sRequestto Leave

2 Town" April 4, 2008,at http ://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

3 36. Defendants’ sweepswere launchedin September2007, have continued

4 throughthe presenttime, andshowno signsof abating.

5 37. On or aboutSeptember27, 2007, Arpaio and MCSO initiated a "crime

6 suppression operation"in Cave Creek, Arizona, to investigate and arrestpersons

7 deemedby them to be "illegal" immigrants and to disrupt a "day labor" centerin the

8 parking lot of a local church where personswho are predominantlyLatino gather.

9 Acting under color of law and Arpaio’s orders, severalMCSO officers detained,

10 questionedand arrestedat leastnine Latino individuals becausethey allegedly were

11 undocumentedimmigrants. In the case of at least one vehicle that MCSO officers

12 stoppedafterit left the churchparkinglot, MCSO officerslet theCaucasiandriver leave

13 anddid not issue a citation to him, but they questioned, detainedandarrestedthe Latino

14 passengersin the Caucasian driver’s vehicle.SeePress Release,Maricopa County

15 Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff’s Office Not Waiting for Loitering andSoliciting Ordinanceto

16 Take Effect" September27, 2007, at http://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/CC.pdf.

17 Uponinformation andbelief, the officers did not havereasonable suspicionor probable

18 cause to believe that any driver stoppedor passenger questionedhad committed a

19 violation of Arizona or federal law, and in any event, used atraffic violation to

20 investigatetheimmigration statusof all Latino occupants.

21 38. On October 4, 2007, Arpaio and MCSO initiated another "crime

22 suppression operation"in QueenCreek, Arizona. Again, at least16 Latino individuals

23 were detained,questionedandarrestedon suspicionof being undocumentedimmigrants.

24 SeePressRelease,MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff Arpaio GoesAfter Day

25 Laborers" October4, 2007, at http://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Queen%2oCreek

26 %2ODay%2oLaborers.pdf. Upon information and belief, the officers did not have

27 reasonable suspicionor probablecauseto believe that anydriver stoppedor passenger

28 questionedhadcommittedaviolation of Arizona orfederal law, andin anyevent,used a

- 12 -


1 Operation in Guadalupe Returns: Arpaio Disregards Mayor Jimenez's Request to Leave

2 Town" (April 4, 2008), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

3 36. Defendants' sweeps were launched in September 2007, have continued

4 through the present time, and show no signs of abating.

5 37. On or about September 27, 2007, Arpaio and MCSO initiated a "crime

6 suppressIOn operation" in Cave Creek, Arizona, to investigate and arrest persons

7 deemed by them to be "illegal" immigrants and to disrupt a "day labor" center in the

8 parking lot of a local church where persons who are predominantly Latino gather.

9 Acting under color of law and Arpaio' s orders, several MCSO officers detained,

10 questioned and arrested at least nine Latino individuals because they allegedly were

11 undocumented immigrants. In the case of at least one vehicle that MCSO officers

12 stopped after it left the church parking lot, MCSO officers let the Caucasian driver leave

13 and did not issue a citation to him, but they questioned, detained and arrested the Latino

14 passengers in the Caucasian driver's vehicle. See Press Release, Maricopa County

15 Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs Office Not Waiting for Loitering and Soliciting Ordinance to

16 Take Effect" (September 27, 2007), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/CC.pdf.

17 Upon information and belief, the officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable

18 cause to believe that any driver stopped or passenger questioned had committed a

19 violation of Arizona or federal law, and in any event, used a traffic violation to

20 investigate the immigration status of all Latino occupants.


22 suppression operation" in Queen Creek, Arizona. Again, at least 16 Latino individuals

23 were detained, questioned and arrested on suspicion of being undocumented immigrants.

24 See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff Arpaio Goes After Day

25 Laborers" (October 4, 2007), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Queen%20Creek

26 %20Day%20Laborers.pdf. Upon information and belief, the officers did not have

27 reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that any driver stopped or passenger

28 questioned had committed a violation of Arizona or federal law, and in any event, used a

- 12 -

1 Operation in Guadalupe Returns: Arpaio Disregards Mayor Jimenez's Request to Leave

2 Town" (April 4, 2008), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

3 36. Defendants' sweeps were launched in September 2007, have continued

4 through the present time, and show no signs of abating.

5 37. On or about September 27, 2007, Arpaio and MCSO initiated a "crime

6 suppressIOn operation" in Cave Creek, Arizona, to investigate and arrest persons

7 deemed by them to be "illegal" immigrants and to disrupt a "day labor" center in the

8 parking lot of a local church where persons who are predominantly Latino gather.

9 Acting under color of law and Arpaio' s orders, several MCSO officers detained,

10 questioned and arrested at least nine Latino individuals because they allegedly were

11 undocumented immigrants. In the case of at least one vehicle that MCSO officers

12 stopped after it left the church parking lot, MCSO officers let the Caucasian driver leave

13 and did not issue a citation to him, but they questioned, detained and arrested the Latino

14 passengers in the Caucasian driver's vehicle. See Press Release, Maricopa County

15 Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs Office Not Waiting for Loitering and Soliciting Ordinance to

16 Take Effect" (September 27, 2007), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/CC.pdf.

17 Upon information and belief, the officers did not have reasonable suspicion or probable

18 cause to believe that any driver stopped or passenger questioned had committed a

19 violation of Arizona or federal law, and in any event, used a traffic violation to

20 investigate the immigration status of all Latino occupants.


22 suppression operation" in Queen Creek, Arizona. Again, at least 16 Latino individuals

23 were detained, questioned and arrested on suspicion of being undocumented immigrants.

24 See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff Arpaio Goes After Day

25 Laborers" (October 4, 2007), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Queen%20Creek

26 %20Day%20Laborers.pdf. Upon information and belief, the officers did not have

27 reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that any driver stopped or passenger

28 questioned had committed a violation of Arizona or federal law, and in any event, used a

- 12 -

1 traffic violation to investigatethe immigration statusof all Latino occupants. Upon

2 information andbelief, therewere otherpersonswho appearedto be Latino beyondthe

3 number arrestedwho were also subject to pretextual, racially motivated stops and

4 questioningaimedat investigatingthem for immigration enforcement.

5 39. For several monthsbeginning in October2007, DefendantsArpaio and

6 MCSO targeted the intersectionof 34th Streetand Thomas Road in central Phoenix

7 becauseof the presenceof day laborers nearPruitt’s Furniture Store. See, e.g.,Press

8 Release,MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Arpaio Intensifies Presenceat Pro-Illegal

9 Immigration Protests at Pruitt’s" December 5, 2007, at

10 http://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Arrests%20120507.pdf. Upon information and

11 belief, MCSOdid not engagein theseactivitiesat the invitation or requestof theCity of

12 PhoenixPolice Department,which hasjurisdiction over this area. Upon information

13 andbelief, MCSO officersengagedin racial profiling and targetedLatino individuals

14 during this operation. These officers stoppedand questionedLatino drivers and

15 passengersprior to having adequatecause or suspicion that they were involved in

16 criminal acts, and in any event, for racially motivated reasons,singled them out for

17 investigationand enforcement andsubjectedthem to different treatment.

18 40. On December 5, 2007, Defendant Arpaio announced that he was

19 increasingthe numberof MCSO deputies patrollingthe Pruitt’s parking area. Id.

20 Arpaio announcedthat he was acting in responseto protestsby membersof the Latino

21 community about the policies of the MCSO and thePruitt’s owner. During the

22 operationat Pruitt’s, Arpaio andhis officers stopped,detained,questionedandarrested

23 Latino personsin the vicinityof the store. Upon information andbelief, the officers did

24 not have reasonable suspicionor probable cause to believe that those stoppedhad

25 committeda violation of Arizona orfederal law prior to making the stop, andin any

26 event,for raciallymotivated reasons,singledthem out for investigationand enforcement

27 and subjectedthem to different treatment. In an apparenteffort to suppressthe Pruitt

28

- 13 -


1 traffic violation to investigate the immigration status of all Latino occupants. Upon

2 information and belief, there were other persons who appeared to be Latino beyond the

3 number arrested who were also subject to pretextual, racially motivated stops and

4 questioning aimed at investigating them for immigration enforcement.

5 39. For several months beginning in October 2007, Defendants Arpaio and

6 MCSO targeted the intersection of 34th Street and Thomas Road in central Phoenix

7 because of the presence of day laborers near Pruitt's Furniture Store. See, e.g., Press

8 Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Arpaio Intensifies Presence at Pro-Illegal

9 Immigration Protests at Pruitt's" (December 5, 2007), at

10 http://www.mcso.org/inc1ude/pr~df/Arrests%20120507.pdf. Upon information and

11 belief, MCSO did not engage in these activities at the invitation or request of the City of

12 Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area. Upon information

13 and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling and targeted Latino individuals

14 during this operation. These officers stopped and questioned Latino drivers and

15 passengers prior to having adequate cause or suspicion that they were involved in

16 criminal acts, and in any event, for racially motivated reasons, singled them out for

17 investigation and enforcement and subjected them to different treatment.


19 increasing the number of MCSO deputies patrolling the Pruitt's parking area. Id.

20 Arpaio announced that he was acting in response to protests by members of the Latino

21 community about the policies of the MCSO and the Pruitt's owner. During the

22 operation at Pruitt's, Arpaio and his officers stopped, detained, questioned and arrested

23 Latino persons in the vicinity of the store. Upon information and belief, the officers did

24 not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that those stopped had

25 committed a violation of Arizona or federal law prior to making the stop, and in any

26 event, for racially motivated reasons, singled them out for investigation and enforcement

27 and subjected them to different treatment. In an apparent effort to suppress the Pruitt

28

- 13 -

1 traffic violation to investigate the immigration status of all Latino occupants. Upon

2 information and belief, there were other persons who appeared to be Latino beyond the

3 number arrested who were also subject to pretextual, racially motivated stops and

4 questioning aimed at investigating them for immigration enforcement.

5 39. For several months beginning in October 2007, Defendants Arpaio and

6 MCSO targeted the intersection of 34th Street and Thomas Road in central Phoenix

7 because of the presence of day laborers near Pruitt's Furniture Store. See, e.g., Press

8 Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Arpaio Intensifies Presence at Pro-Illegal

9 Immigration Protests at Pruitt's" (December 5, 2007), at

10 http://www.mcso.org/inc1ude/pr~df/Arrests%20120507.pdf. Upon information and

11 belief, MCSO did not engage in these activities at the invitation or request of the City of

12 Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area. Upon information

13 and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling and targeted Latino individuals

14 during this operation. These officers stopped and questioned Latino drivers and

15 passengers prior to having adequate cause or suspicion that they were involved in

16 criminal acts, and in any event, for racially motivated reasons, singled them out for

17 investigation and enforcement and subjected them to different treatment.


19 increasing the number of MCSO deputies patrolling the Pruitt's parking area. Id.

20 Arpaio announced that he was acting in response to protests by members of the Latino

21 community about the policies of the MCSO and the Pruitt's owner. During the

22 operation at Pruitt's, Arpaio and his officers stopped, detained, questioned and arrested

23 Latino persons in the vicinity of the store. Upon information and belief, the officers did

24 not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that those stopped had

25 committed a violation of Arizona or federal law prior to making the stop, and in any

26 event, for racially motivated reasons, singled them out for investigation and enforcement

27 and subjected them to different treatment. In an apparent effort to suppress the Pruitt

28

- 13 -

1 store protesters’ exerciseof their First Amendmentrights, Arpaio announcedthat he

2 would continueto patrol the areauntil theprotestsended. Id.

3 41. On or aboutJanuaiy 18, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducteda "crime

4 suppression operation" between16th and40th StreetsandMcDowell andIndian School

5 Roads in Phoenix. See Press Release, MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff

6 Mobilizes Posse in Central Phoenix" Januaiy 18, 2008, at

7 http://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Sheriff%2oMobilizes%2oPosse%2Oin%2oCentral

8 %2oPhoenix.pdf.Upon informationandbelief, MCSOdid not engagein theseactivities

9 at the invitation or requestof the PhoenixPolice Department,which hasjurisdiction

10 over this area. Upon information andbelief, MCSO officersengagedin racialprofiling

11 and targetedLatino individuals during this operation. To justify the massiveuse of

12 MCSO resourcesin the areaboundedby 16th and40th StreetsandIndian School and

13 McDowell Roadsin Phoenix, DefendantArpaio stated: "I anticipatethat manyillegal

14 immigrantswill be arrestedas thecentralPhoenixneighborhoodremainsapopularspot

15 for daylaborers." Id. Such daylaborersarepredominantlyLatino, but areby no means

16 exclusively noncitizens,let alone all undocumented.

17 42. In late March 2008, Arpaio andMCSO conducteda "crime suppression

18 operation" at Cave Creek and Bell Roadsin Phoenixbecauseof the existenceof the

19 Macehueli DayLabor Center,which is run by oneof the leadersof the Pruitt’s protests,

20 SalvadorReza. SeePressRelease,MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Bell Road Crime

21 Suppression Patrols" March 28, 2008, at

22 http ://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Bell%200perations%2032808.pdf. Upon

23 information and belief, MCSO did not engagein these activities at the invitation or

24 requestof the PhoenixPolice Department,which hasjurisdiction over this area. Upon

25 information andbelief, MCSO officers engagedin racial profiling and targetedLatino

26 individuals during this operation. DefendantArpaio praisedas "patriotic" the private

27 groups, including the American FreedomRiders, that on information and belief, had

28 been harassing all Latino personsentering and leaving this legal center. Upon

- 14 -


1 store protesters' exercise of their First Amendment rights, Arpaio announced that he

2 would continue to patrol the area until the protests ended. Id.

3 41. On or about January 18, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

4 suppression operation" between 16th and 40th Streets and McDowell and Indian School

5 Roads in Phoenix. See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff

6 Mobilizes Posse III Central Phoenix" (January 18, 2008), at

7 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/SheriffU;Q20Mobilizes%20Posse%20in%20Central

8 %20Phoenix.pdf. Upon information and belief, MCSO did not engage in these activities

9 at the invitation or request of the Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction

10 over this area. Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling

11 and targeted Latino individuals during this operation. To justify the massive use of

12 MCSO resources in the area bounded by 16th and 40th Streets and Indian School and

13 McDowell Roads in Phoenix, Defendant Arpaio stated: "I anticipate that many illegal

14 immigrants will be arrested as the central Phoenix neighborhood remains a popular spot

15 for day laborers." Id. Such day laborers are predominantly Latino, but are by no means

16 exclusively noncitizens, let alone all undocumented.

17 42. In late March 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime suppression

18 operation" at Cave Creek and Bell Roads in Phoenix because of the existence of the

19 Macehueli Day Labor Center, which is run by one of the leaders of the Pruitt's protests,

20 Salvador Reza. See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Bell Road Crime

21 Suppression Patrols" (March 28, 2008), at

22 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Bell%200perations%2032808.pdf. Upon

23 information and belief, MCSO did not engage in these activities at the invitation or

24 request of the Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area. Upon

25 information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling and targeted Latino

26 individuals during this operation. Defendant Arpaio praised as "patriotic" the private

27 groups, including the American Freedom Riders, that on information and belief, had

28 been harassing all Latino persons entering and leaving this legal center. Upon

- 14 -

1 store protesters' exercise of their First Amendment rights, Arpaio announced that he

2 would continue to patrol the area until the protests ended. Id.

3 41. On or about January 18, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

4 suppression operation" between 16th and 40th Streets and McDowell and Indian School

5 Roads in Phoenix. See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff

6 Mobilizes Posse III Central Phoenix" (January 18, 2008), at

7 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/SheriffU;Q20Mobilizes%20Posse%20in%20Central

8 %20Phoenix.pdf. Upon information and belief, MCSO did not engage in these activities

9 at the invitation or request of the Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction

10 over this area. Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling

11 and targeted Latino individuals during this operation. To justify the massive use of

12 MCSO resources in the area bounded by 16th and 40th Streets and Indian School and

13 McDowell Roads in Phoenix, Defendant Arpaio stated: "I anticipate that many illegal

14 immigrants will be arrested as the central Phoenix neighborhood remains a popular spot

15 for day laborers." Id. Such day laborers are predominantly Latino, but are by no means

16 exclusively noncitizens, let alone all undocumented.

17 42. In late March 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime suppression

18 operation" at Cave Creek and Bell Roads in Phoenix because of the existence of the

19 Macehueli Day Labor Center, which is run by one of the leaders of the Pruitt's protests,

20 Salvador Reza. See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Bell Road Crime

21 Suppression Patrols" (March 28, 2008), at

22 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Bell%200perations%2032808.pdf. Upon


24 request of the Phoenix Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area. Upon


26 individuals during this operation. Defendant Arpaio praised as "patriotic" the private

27 groups, including the American Freedom Riders, that on information and belief, had

28 been harassing all Latino persons entering and leaving this legal center. Upon

- 14 -

1 information and belief, Arpaio was aware of the anti-immigrant reputation of the

2 American FreedomRidersand thepublic useofracial epithetsby their members.

3 43. BetweenApril 3 andApril 6, 2008, Arpaio andMCSO conducteda "crime

4 suppression operation"in the Town of Guadalupe,Arizona. See Press Release,

5 MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff’s Crime SuppressionOperationMoves to

6 Guadalupe" April 3, 2008, at http ://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Guadalupe

7 %200peration.pdf. Upon information and belief, MCSO officersengagedin racial

8 profiling, targeting individualswho appearedto themto be Latino duringthis operation.

9 44. As MCSO is the law enforcement agencyfor the Town of Guadalupe,

10 Arpaio was aware that nearlyall of the residentsof Guadalupeare of Latino and/or

11 Native Americandescent. In responseto the criticism of his tacticsand allegationsof

12 racial profiling by the Mayorof Guadalupe,Rebecca Jimenez,Arpaio publicly labeled

13 her"a supporterof illegal immigration." SeePressRelease,MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s

14 Office, "Sheriff’s Operationin GuadalupeReturns:Arpaio DisregardsMayor Jimenez’s

15 Request to Leave Town" April 4, 2008, at

16 http ://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

17 45. On April 4, 2008, after thecommencementof the MCSO sweep in the

18 Town of Guadalupe,Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon formally requested thatU.S. Attorney

19 General Michael Mukasey launch a Justice Department investigation into the

20 "discriminatoryharassment,improperstops,searchesandarrests"of Latino personsin

21 MaricopaCounty by the MCSO. A copy of Mayor Gordon’s letter is attachedas

22 Exhibit D.

23 46. On or about May 7, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

24 suppression operation"in FountainHills, Arizona. SeePressRelease,MaricopaCounty

25 Sheriff’s Office, "Mesa Drop House" May 8, 2008 at

26 http ://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/mesa%2odrop%2ohouse%2050808.pdf. Upon

27 information andbelief, MCSO officers engagedin racial profiling and targetedLatino

28 individualsduring thisoperationasdescribedabovefor other sweeps.

- 15 -



2 American Freedom Riders and the public use of racial epithets by their members.

3 43. Between April 3 and April 6, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

4 suppressIOn operation" in the Town of Guadalupe, Arizona. See Press Release,

5 Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs Crime Suppression Operation Moves to

6 Guadalupe" (April 3, 2008), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe

7 %200peration.pdf. Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial

8 profiling, targeting individuals who appeared to them to be Latino during this operation.

9 44. As MCSO is the law enforcement agency for the Town of Guadalupe,

10 Arpaio was aware that nearly all of the residents of Guadalupe are of Latino and/or

11 Native American descent. In response to the criticism of his tactics and allegations of

12 racial profiling by the Mayor of Guadalupe, Rebecca Jimenez, Arpaio publicly labeled

13 her "a supporter of illegal immigration." See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriffs

14 Office, "Sheriffs Operation in Guadalupe Returns: Arpaio Disregards Mayor Jimenez's

15 Request to Leave Town" (April 4, 2008), at

16 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

17 45. On April 4, 2008, after the commencement of the MCSO sweep in the

18 Town of Guadalupe, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon formally requested that U.S. Attorney


20 "discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests" of Latino persons in

21 Maricopa County by the MCSO. (A copy of Mayor Gordon's letter is attached as

22 Exhibit D.)


24 suppression operation" in Fountain Hills, Arizona. See Press Release, Maricopa County

25 Sheriff s Office, "Mesa Drop House" (May 8, 2008) at

26 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/mesa%20drop%20house%2050808.pdf. Upon


28 individuals during this operation as described above for other sweeps.

- 15 -


2 American Freedom Riders and the public use of racial epithets by their members.

3 43. Between April 3 and April 6, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

4 suppressIOn operation" in the Town of Guadalupe, Arizona. See Press Release,

5 Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, "Sheriffs Crime Suppression Operation Moves to

6 Guadalupe" (April 3, 2008), at http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe

7 %200peration.pdf. Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial

8 profiling, targeting individuals who appeared to them to be Latino during this operation.

9 44. As MCSO is the law enforcement agency for the Town of Guadalupe,

10 Arpaio was aware that nearly all of the residents of Guadalupe are of Latino and/or

11 Native American descent. In response to the criticism of his tactics and allegations of

12 racial profiling by the Mayor of Guadalupe, Rebecca Jimenez, Arpaio publicly labeled

13 her "a supporter of illegal immigration." See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriffs

14 Office, "Sheriffs Operation in Guadalupe Returns: Arpaio Disregards Mayor Jimenez's

15 Request to Leave Town" (April 4, 2008), at

16 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Guadalupe%202008.pdf.

17 45. On April 4, 2008, after the commencement of the MCSO sweep in the

18 Town of Guadalupe, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon formally requested that U.S. Attorney


20 "discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests" of Latino persons in

21 Maricopa County by the MCSO. (A copy of Mayor Gordon's letter is attached as

22 Exhibit D.)


24 suppression operation" in Fountain Hills, Arizona. See Press Release, Maricopa County

25 Sheriff s Office, "Mesa Drop House" (May 8, 2008) at

26 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/mesa%20drop%20house%2050808.pdf. Upon


28 individuals during this operation as described above for other sweeps.

- 15 -

1 47. On or about June 26, 2008, Arpaio and MCSO conducted a "crime

2 suppression operation"in Mesa,Arizona, usingnearly200 deputiesandpossemembers.

3 See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, "Sheriff’s Crime

4 SuppressionllllegalImmigration Operation Moves Into Mesa" June 26, 2008 at

5 http://www.mcso.org/include/prpdf/Mesa%2OCrime%20Suppression.pdf. Upon

6 information and belief, MCSO did not engagein these activities at the invitation or

7 requestof the City of Mesa Police Department,which hasjurisdiction over this area.

8 Upon information andbelief, MCSO officersengagedin racial profiling and targeted

9 Latino individualsduring thisoperationasdescribedabovefor othersweeps.

10 48. On information andbelief, the MCSO personnelinvolved in these"crime

11 suppressionsweeps"andin the vehicle stopsof Plaintiffs andotherLatinos in Maricopa

12 County have targeted,stopped,interrogated,detainedor arrestedLatino personsbased

13 on their race, color and/or ethnicity,pretextually and notbecauseof probablecauseor

14 reasonable suspicionthat they hadcommittedany crime.

15 Additional Indicia of Racial Bias

16 49. In early 2008, Arpaio establisheda telephonehotline to facilitate MCSO’s

17 unlawful, racially-biasedimmigration enforcementtactics and its racial profiling of

18 Latinos in MaricopaCounty. Arpaio was awarethathis policy of actingon anonymous

19 citizen "tips" aboutallegedundocumentedimmigrantsandhis invitation for untrained

20 membersof thepublic to participatein his enforcementcampaignwould resultin false,

21 inaccurate,and raciallymotivated reports aboutLatino residents. As opposedto law

22 enforcementuse of tips from the public which are basedon suspectedcriminal activity

23 andbehaviors,a citizen reportthat an individual is "here illegally" will often be based

24 solely on anindividual’s race, colorand/or ethnicity. On information andbelief, this

25 hotline hasbeenusedto further thepolicies andpractices complainedof herein andhas

26 increasedtheir raciallydiscriminatoiyimpact.

27 50. Racial profiling in law enforcementoperationshas beenrecognizedas a

28 seriousand recurrentproblemby electedofficials andassociations representingchiefs of

- 16 -



2 suppression operation" in Mesa, Arizona, using nearly 200 deputies and posse members.

3 See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff s Crime

4 Suppression/Illegal Immigration Operation Moves Into Mesa" (June 26, 2008) at

5 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Mesa%20Crime%20Suppression.pdf. Upon


7 request of the City of Mesa Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area.

8 Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling and targeted

9 Latino individuals during this operation as described above for other sweeps.

10 48. On information and belief, the MCSO personnel involved in these "crime

11 suppression sweeps" and in the vehicle stops of Plaintiffs and other Latinos in Maricopa

12 County have targeted, stopped, interrogated, detained or arrested Latino persons based

13 on their race, color and/or ethnicity, pretextually and not because of probable cause or

14 reasonable suspicion that they had committed any crime.


16 49. In early 2008, Arpaio established a telephone hotline to facilitate MCSO's

17 unlawful, racially-biased immigration enforcement tactics and its racial profiling of

18 Latinos in Maricopa County. Arpaio was aware that his policy of acting on anonymous

19 citizen "tips" about alleged undocumented immigrants and his invitation for untrained

20 members of the public to participate in his enforcement campaign would result in false,

21 inaccurate, and racially motivated reports about Latino residents. As opposed to law

22 enforcement use of tips from the public which are based on suspected criminal activity

23 and behaviors, a citizen report that an individual is "here illegally" will often be based

24 solely on an individual's race, color and/or ethnicity. On information and belief, this

25 hotline has been used to further the policies and practices complained of herein and has

26 increased their racially discriminatory impact.

27 50. Racial profiling in law enforcement operations has been recognized as a

28 serious and recurrent problem by elected officials and associations representing chiefs of

- 16 -


2 suppression operation" in Mesa, Arizona, using nearly 200 deputies and posse members.

3 See Press Release, Maricopa County Sheriff s Office, "Sheriff s Crime

4 Suppression/Illegal Immigration Operation Moves Into Mesa" (June 26, 2008) at

5 http://www.mcso.org/include/pr~df/Mesa%20Crime%20Suppression.pdf. Upon


7 request of the City of Mesa Police Department, which has jurisdiction over this area.

8 Upon information and belief, MCSO officers engaged in racial profiling and targeted

9 Latino individuals during this operation as described above for other sweeps.

10 48. On information and belief, the MCSO personnel involved in these "crime

11 suppression sweeps" and in the vehicle stops of Plaintiffs and other Latinos in Maricopa

12 County have targeted, stopped, interrogated, detained or arrested Latino persons based

13 on their race, color and/or ethnicity, pretextually and not because of probable cause or



16 49. In early 2008, Arpaio established a telephone hotline to facilitate MCSO's

17 unlawful, racially-biased immigration enforcement tactics and its racial profiling of

18 Latinos in Maricopa County. Arpaio was aware that his policy of acting on anonymous

19 citizen "tips" about alleged undocumented immigrants and his invitation for untrained

20 members of the public to participate in his enforcement campaign would result in false,

21 inaccurate, and racially motivated reports about Latino residents. As opposed to law

22 enforcement use of tips from the public which are based on suspected criminal activity

23 and behaviors, a citizen report that an individual is "here illegally" will often be based

24 solely on an individual's race, color and/or ethnicity. On information and belief, this

25 hotline has been used to further the policies and practices complained of herein and has

26 increased their racially discriminatory impact.

27 50. Racial profiling in law enforcement operations has been recognized as a

28 serious and recurrent problem by elected officials and associations representing chiefs of

- 16 -

1 police and other law enforcementprofessionals across the nation andbeyond.

2 Professional safeguardshave beendevelopedfor law enforcementagenciesto monitor

3 and deter raciallymotivated practiceswhen stopping and questioningthe drivers of

4 vehicles and anypassengers. These safeguards include: collectingdata for eveiy

5 vehicle stop,including dataregarding therace ofthepersonsaffected,the identityof the

6 officers involved, the reasonfor the stopandthe actions taken;regularly analyzingthis

7 datafor the agency andfor particularunits andofficers; interveningif the resultingdata

8 indicateaproblem of racial profiling or racial animus;requiringongoing trainingof all

9 personnel in the area of racial bias andsensitivity; disciplining personnelupon

10 documented findingsof racially improperactions;video andaudio taping of all vehicle

11 stopsfrom startto finish; andmaking availableto the public the resultsof the agency’s

12 monitoring efforts and its internal reviews of racial profiling or race discrimination

13 complaints.

14 51. On information andbelief, Defendantshavenot adequatelyimplemented,

15 or even begun to implement, the foregoing safeguards. Rather, Arpaioand other

16 Defendantshave remainedsteadfastin their resolve to continue their course. As a

17 result, Plaintiffs and those they seek to representcontinue to be at risk for being

18 subjectedto pretextualstops,detention, questioning,searchesandother mistreatment,

19 without adequate causeor suspicionandbecauseofthe color oftheir skin.

20 CLASS REPRESENTATIVES

21 52. Defendants’behaviortowardthe following Plaintiffs starkly illustratesthe

22 unlawful policies, practicesandconduct describedabove.

23 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Manuel de JesusOrte2a Melendres

24 53. On September6, 2007, Mr. Ortegalegally enteredthe UnitedStatesat the

25 borderstationin Nogales,Arizona.

26 54. Mr. Ortegapossessesa U.S. Visa that is valid through August23, 2016,

27 andpossesseda Permit issuedby the U.S. Departmentof Homeland Securitythat was

28 valid through November1, 2007.

- 17 -


1 police and other law enforcement professionals across the nation and beyond.

2 Professional safeguards have been developed for law enforcement agencies to monitor

3 and deter racially motivated practices when stopping and questioning the drivers of

4 vehicles and any passengers. These safeguards include: collecting data for every

5 vehicle stop, including data regarding the race of the persons affected, the identity of the

6 officers involved, the reason for the stop and the actions taken; regularly analyzing this

7 data for the agency and for particular units and officers; intervening if the resulting data

8 indicate a problem of racial profiling or racial animus; requiring ongoing training of all

9 personnel in the area of racial bias and sensitivity; disciplining personnel upon

10 documented findings of racially improper actions; video and audio taping of all vehicle

11 stops from start to finish; and making available to the public the results of the agency's


13 complaints.

14 51. On information and belief, Defendants have not adequately implemented,

15 or even begun to implement, the foregoing safeguards. Rather, Arpaio and other

16 Defendants have remained steadfast in their resolve to continue their course. As a

17 result, Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent continue to be at risk for being

18 subjected to pretextual stops, detention, questioning, searches and other mistreatment,

19 without adequate cause or suspicion and because of the color of their skin.


21 52. Defendants' behavior toward the following Plaintiffs starkly illustrates the

22 unlawful policies, practices and conduct described above.

23 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres

24 53. On September 6, 2007, Mr. Ortega legally entered the United States at the

25 border station in Nogales, Arizona.

26 54. Mr. Ortega possesses a U.S. Visa that is valid through August 23, 2016,

27 and possessed a Permit issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was

28 valid through November 1,2007.

- 17 -

1 police and other law enforcement professionals across the nation and beyond.

2 Professional safeguards have been developed for law enforcement agencies to monitor

3 and deter racially motivated practices when stopping and questioning the drivers of

4 vehicles and any passengers. These safeguards include: collecting data for every

5 vehicle stop, including data regarding the race of the persons affected, the identity of the

6 officers involved, the reason for the stop and the actions taken; regularly analyzing this

7 data for the agency and for particular units and officers; intervening if the resulting data

8 indicate a problem of racial profiling or racial animus; requiring ongoing training of all

9 personnel in the area of racial bias and sensitivity; disciplining personnel upon

10 documented findings of racially improper actions; video and audio taping of all vehicle

11 stops from start to finish; and making available to the public the results of the agency's


13 complaints.

14 51. On information and belief, Defendants have not adequately implemented,

15 or even begun to implement, the foregoing safeguards. Rather, Arpaio and other

16 Defendants have remained steadfast in their resolve to continue their course. As a

17 result, Plaintiffs and those they seek to represent continue to be at risk for being

18 subjected to pretextual stops, detention, questioning, searches and other mistreatment,

19 without adequate cause or suspicion and because of the color of their skin.


21 52. Defendants' behavior toward the following Plaintiffs starkly illustrates the

22 unlawful policies, practices and conduct described above.

23 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres

24 53. On September 6, 2007, Mr. Ortega legally entered the United States at the

25 border station in Nogales, Arizona.

26 54. Mr. Ortega possesses a U.S. Visa that is valid through August 23, 2016,

27 and possessed a Permit issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that was

28 valid through November 1,2007.

- 17 -

1 55. On oraboutSeptember26, 2007, at 6:15 a.m.,Mr. Ortegawas apassenger

2 in a vehicle in Cave Creek, Arizona thatwas stoppedby officers from the Maricopa

3 County Sheriff’s Office. The vehicle was being driven by a Caucasianmale, but the

4 passengers, includingMr. Ortega,were Latino men.

5 56. The officers told the driver that he was being stoppedfor speeding,but

6 theydid not give him acitation or take him intocustody.

7 57. The officers lookedat Mr. Ortegasitting in the vehicle andaskedhim to

8 produceidentification.

9 58. Mr. Ortega showed them the following documents that he had in his

10 wallet: a his United StatesVisa, which has his photographand fingerprinton it; b

11 his Mexican Federal VoterRegistration card, which also has his photograph and

12 fingerprint on it; andc a copy of the Permit he was given by the U.S. Departmentof

13 Homeland Securitywith a stampshowing its validity throughNovember1, 2007.

14 59. Although Mr. Ortegaproducedidentification establishinghis legal status,

15 theofficers told him to exit thevehicle.

16 60. After exiting the vehicle, the officers pushedMr. Ortegaagainsta police

17 vehicleand roughlypattedhim downover his entirebody.

18 61. The Sheriff’s officers then took eveiything out of Mr. Ortega’spockets,

19 including his wallet anda small bottle of lotion thatMr. Ortegaoccasionallyappliesto

20 his face so thathis skin doesnot becomedry.

21 62. The Sheriff’s officers,uponremovalof the small bottle of lotion from Mr.

22 Ortega’spocket, askedMr. Ortega in a confrontationalmanner, "How many times a

23 weekdo youjackoff?"

24 63. Mr. Ortega was then handcuffedwith his arms behind his back. Mr.

25 Ortegahadabrokenwrist yearsago that did not healcorrectly. His wrist has avisible

26 deformity and causeshim pain. Mr. Ortega askedthe Sheriff’s officers to pleasebe

27 careful in handcuffing him, but they handledhim roughly. The officers kept Mr.

28 Ortega’shandshandcuffed behindhis backfor approximately40 minutes.

- 18 -


1 55. On or about September 26,2007, at 6: 15 a.m., Mr. Ortega was a passenger

2 in a vehicle in Cave Creek, Arizona that was stopped by officers from the Maricopa

3 County Sheriff s Office. The vehicle was being driven by a Caucasian male, but the

4 passengers, including Mr. Ortega, were Latino men.

5 56. The officers told the driver that he was being stopped for speeding, but

6 they did not give him a citation or take him into custody.

7 57. The officers looked at Mr. Ortega sitting in the vehicle and asked him to

8 produce identification.


10 wallet: (a) his United States Visa, which has his photograph and fingerprint on it; (b)

11 his Mexican Federal Voter Registration card, which also has his photograph and

12 fingerprint on it; and (c) a copy of the Permit he was given by the U.S. Department of

13 Homeland Security with a stamp showing its validity through November 1,2007.

14 59. Although Mr. Ortega produced identification establishing his legal status,

15 the officers told him to exit the vehicle.

16 60. After exiting the vehicle, the officers pushed Mr. Ortega against a police

17 vehicle and roughly patted him down over his entire body.

18 61. The Sheriffs officers then took everything out of Mr. Ortega's pockets,

19 including his wallet and a small bottle of lotion that Mr. Ortega occasionally applies to

20 his face so that his skin does not become dry.

21 62. The Sheriff s officers, upon removal of the small bottle of lotion from Mr.

22 Ortega's pocket, asked Mr. Ortega in a confrontational manner, "How many times a

23 week do you jack off?"

24 63. Mr. Ortega was then handcuffed with his arms behind his back. Mr.

25 Ortega had a broken wrist years ago that did not heal correctly. His wrist has a visible

26 deformity and causes him pain. Mr. Ortega asked the Sheriff s officers to please be

27 careful in handcuffing him, but they handled him roughly. The officers kept Mr.

28 Ortega's hands handcuffed behind his back for approximately 40 minutes.

- 18 -

1 55. On or about September 26,2007, at 6: 15 a.m., Mr. Ortega was a passenger

2 in a vehicle in Cave Creek, Arizona that was stopped by officers from the Maricopa

3 County Sheriff s Office. The vehicle was being driven by a Caucasian male, but the

4 passengers, including Mr. Ortega, were Latino men.

5 56. The officers told the driver that he was being stopped for speeding, but

6 they did not give him a citation or take him into custody.

7 57. The officers looked at Mr. Ortega sitting in the vehicle and asked him to

8 produce identification.


10 wallet: (a) his United States Visa, which has his photograph and fingerprint on it; (b)

11 his Mexican Federal Voter Registration card, which also has his photograph and

12 fingerprint on it; and (c) a copy of the Permit he was given by the U.S. Department of

13 Homeland Security with a stamp showing its validity through November 1,2007.

14 59. Although Mr. Ortega produced identification establishing his legal status,

15 the officers told him to exit the vehicle.

16 60. After exiting the vehicle, the officers pushed Mr. Ortega against a police

17 vehicle and roughly patted him down over his entire body.

18 61. The Sheriffs officers then took everything out of Mr. Ortega's pockets,

19 including his wallet and a small bottle of lotion that Mr. Ortega occasionally applies to

20 his face so that his skin does not become dry.

21 62. The Sheriff s officers, upon removal of the small bottle of lotion from Mr.

22 Ortega's pocket, asked Mr. Ortega in a confrontational manner, "How many times a

23 week do you jack off?"

24 63. Mr. Ortega was then handcuffed with his arms behind his back. Mr.

25 Ortega had a broken wrist years ago that did not heal correctly. His wrist has a visible

26 deformity and causes him pain. Mr. Ortega asked the Sheriff s officers to please be

27 careful in handcuffing him, but they handled him roughly. The officers kept Mr.

28 Ortega's hands handcuffed behind his back for approximately 40 minutes.

- 18 -

1 64. The officers thenput Mr. Ortega in the backof a Sheriff’s vehicle and

2 took him to the Sheriff’s office in Cave Creek wherehe was placedin aholding cell for

3 fourhours.

4 65. Throughoutthe time that Mr. Ortegawas seizedfrom the vehicle, patted

5 down, handcuffed,transportedto the Sheriff’s office, placedin the holdingcell andleft

6 to remainin the holdingcell, no one from the Sheriff’s office explained anythingto him,

7 and no one offered to get a Spanish speaking officer or translator to assist in

8 communicatingwith him.

9 66. The officersdid not adviseMr. Ortegaofhis Mirandarights.

10 67. The officersdid not give Mr. Ortegaanyopportunityto makeaphonecall.

11 68. The officers did not tell Mr. Ortegawhat crime he allegedlycommitted,or

12 if he was beingchargedwith anycrime.

13 69. The officersdid not sayanythingaboutwhat might happento Mr. Ortega.

14 70. The officersdid not give Mr. Ortegaany documentsregardinghis arrest or

15 their puttinghim in jail.

16 71. After the Sheriff’s officers left Mr. Ortegain thejail for four hours, they

17 placedhim in handcuffsagainanddrovehim to downtownPhoenix. The driver of that

18 vehicle spoke Spanish. Mr. Ortegaexplainedthat his wrist was quite painful andasked

19 if he could be handcuffedwith his handsin front of him rather than behindhim. The

20 driver saidthathe could notdo that.

21 72. The officers droveMr. Ortegato the local ICE office. They took him

22 inside and removed thehandcuffs. Mr. Ortega’shandswere swollen, andhe was in

23 pain.

24 73. At the ICE office, Mr. Ortegawas placedin a holding cell again andleft

25 unattendedfor more thanan hour.

26 74. Mr. Ortegawas thentakento an ICE official who did not identify himself.

27 The Sheriff’s officerswho arrestedMr. Ortegawere alsopresent.

28

- 19 -


1 64. The officers then put Mr. Ortega in the back of a Sheriffs vehicle and

2 took him to the Sheriff s office in Cave Creek where he was placed in a holding cell for

3 four hours.

4 65. Throughout the time that Mr. Ortega was seized from the vehicle, patted

5 down, handcuffed, transported to the Sheriff s office, placed in the holding cell and left

6 to remain in the holding cell, no one from the Sheriff s office explained anything to him,


8 communicating with him.

9 66. The officers did not advise Mr. Ortega of his Miranda rights.

10 67. The officers did not give Mr. Ortega any opportunity to make a phone call.

11 68. The officers did not tell Mr. Ortega what crime he allegedly committed, or

12 if he was being charged with any crime.

13 69. The officers did not say anything about what might happen to Mr. Ortega.

14 70. The officers did not give Mr. Ortega any documents regarding his arrest or

15 their putting him in jail.

16 71. After the Sheriffs officers left Mr. Ortega in the jail for four hours, they

17 placed him in handcuffs again and drove him to downtown Phoenix. The driver of that

18 vehicle spoke Spanish. Mr. Ortega explained that his wrist was quite painful and asked

19 if he could be handcuffed with his hands in front of him rather than behind him. The

20 driver said that he could not do that.

21 72. The officers drove Mr. Ortega to the local ICE office. They took him

22 inside and removed the handcuffs. Mr. Ortega's hands were swollen, and he was in

23 pam.

24 73. At the ICE office, Mr. Ortega was placed in a holding cell again and left

25 unattended for more than an hour.

26 74. Mr. Ortega was then taken to an ICE official who did not identify himself.

27 The Sheriff s officers who arrested Mr. Ortega were also present.

28

- 19 -

1 64. The officers then put Mr. Ortega in the back of a Sheriffs vehicle and

2 took him to the Sheriff s office in Cave Creek where he was placed in a holding cell for

3 four hours.

4 65. Throughout the time that Mr. Ortega was seized from the vehicle, patted

5 down, handcuffed, transported to the Sheriff s office, placed in the holding cell and left

6 to remain in the holding cell, no one from the Sheriff s office explained anything to him,


8 communicating with him.

9 66. The officers did not advise Mr. Ortega of his Miranda rights.

10 67. The officers did not give Mr. Ortega any opportunity to make a phone call.

11 68. The officers did not tell Mr. Ortega what crime he allegedly committed, or

12 if he was being charged with any crime.

13 69. The officers did not say anything about what might happen to Mr. Ortega.

14 70. The officers did not give Mr. Ortega any documents regarding his arrest or

15 their putting him in jail.

16 71. After the Sheriffs officers left Mr. Ortega in the jail for four hours, they

17 placed him in handcuffs again and drove him to downtown Phoenix. The driver of that

18 vehicle spoke Spanish. Mr. Ortega explained that his wrist was quite painful and asked

19 if he could be handcuffed with his hands in front of him rather than behind him. The

20 driver said that he could not do that.

21 72. The officers drove Mr. Ortega to the local ICE office. They took him

22 inside and removed the handcuffs. Mr. Ortega's hands were swollen, and he was in

23 pam.

24 73. At the ICE office, Mr. Ortega was placed in a holding cell again and left

25 unattended for more than an hour.

26 74. Mr. Ortega was then taken to an ICE official who did not identify himself.

27 The Sheriff s officers who arrested Mr. Ortega were also present.

28

- 19 -

1 75. The ICE official askedfor Mr. Ortega’sdocuments.He took aquick look

2 at the documentsand said, "These documentsare good." The ICE official told Mr.

3 Ortegahe wasfree to leave.

4 76. Mr. Ortegahad beenin custodyfor aboutnine hours. During thattime,

5 Mr. Ortegawas never: a given anywater, b given anyfood, c told his rights, or

6 d given thenameof anyof the officers involved.

7 77. Mr. Ortegaalsowasnever given anypaperwork,other thana casenumber,

8 with any information abouthis: a being stopped,b beingtaken into custodyby the

9 Sheriff’s officers, c being heldin jail by the Sheriffs officers, d being transferredto

10 the ICE office, e being heldin jail at the ICE office, or fj his being releasedfrom

11 custody.

12 78. After being released, Mr. Ortega had to make his own way from

13 downtown Phoenixto CaveCreek.

14 79. Becauseof Mr. Ortega’ experience withthe MaricopaCounty Sheriff’s

15 officers he is now afraid. He is frightenedto walk on the streetor be seenin public in

16 MaricopaCounty becausehe fears that theSheriff’s officers will come andarresthim

17 againbecausehe is Latino anddoesnot speakEnglish.

18 80. Mr. Ortegais afraid that theSheriff’s officers will hurt him physically if

19 theypick him up again.

20 81. Mr. Ortegais afraid thathe will be thrownin jail without anyexplanation,

21 without anyrights, and without any opportunityto get help even though the federal

22 governmentof the UnitedStateshas issueda Visa to him that gives him permissionto

23 behere.

24 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of David and JessicaRodri2uez

25 82. On oraboutDecember2, 2007, Mr. andMrs. Rodriguez, along withtheir

26 two youngchildren,visitedLake Bartlett.

27 83. As they were leaving the preserve,while driving on a pavedroad, they

28 saw a sign that read, "RoadDamaged." They could thenseethat theroad aheadwas

- 20 -


1 75. The ICE official asked for Mr. Ortega's documents. He took a quick look

2 at the documents and said, "These documents are good." The ICE official told Mr.

3 Ortega he was free to leave.

4 76. Mr. Ortega had been in custody for about nine hours. During that time,

5 Mr. Ortega was never: (a) given any water, (b) given any food, (c) told his rights, or

6 (d) given the name of any of the officers involved.

7 77. Mr. Ortega also was never given any paperwork, other than a case number,

8 with any information about his: (a) being stopped, (b) being taken into custody by the

9 Sheriff s officers, (c) being held in jail by the Sheriffs officers, (d) being transferred to

10 the ICE office, (e) being held in jail at the ICE office, or (f) his being released from

11 custody.


13 downtown Phoenix to Cave Creek.

14 79. Because of Mr. Ortega' experience with the Maricopa County Sheriffs

15 officers he is now afraid. He is frightened to walk on the street or be seen in public in

16 Maricopa County because he fears that the Sheriff s officers will come and arrest him

17 again because he is Latino and does not speak English.

18 80. Mr. Ortega is afraid that the Sheriffs officers will hurt him physically if

19 they pick him up again.

20 81. Mr. Ortega is afraid that he will be thrown in jail without any explanation,

21 without any rights, and without any opportunity to get help even though the federal

22 government of the United States has issued a Visa to him that gives him permission to

23 be here.

24 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of David and Jessica Rodriguez

25 82. On or about December 2, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, along with their

26 two young children, visited Lake Bartlett.

27 83. As they were leaving the preserve, while driving on a paved road, they

28 saw a sign that read, "Road Damaged." They could then see that the road ahead was

- 20-

1 75. The ICE official asked for Mr. Ortega's documents. He took a quick look

2 at the documents and said, "These documents are good." The ICE official told Mr.

3 Ortega he was free to leave.

4 76. Mr. Ortega had been in custody for about nine hours. During that time,

5 Mr. Ortega was never: (a) given any water, (b) given any food, (c) told his rights, or

6 (d) given the name of any of the officers involved.

7 77. Mr. Ortega also was never given any paperwork, other than a case number,

8 with any information about his: (a) being stopped, (b) being taken into custody by the

9 Sheriff s officers, (c) being held in jail by the Sheriffs officers, (d) being transferred to

10 the ICE office, (e) being held in jail at the ICE office, or (f) his being released from

11 custody.


13 downtown Phoenix to Cave Creek.

14 79. Because of Mr. Ortega' experience with the Maricopa County Sheriffs

15 officers he is now afraid. He is frightened to walk on the street or be seen in public in

16 Maricopa County because he fears that the Sheriff s officers will come and arrest him

17 again because he is Latino and does not speak English.

18 80. Mr. Ortega is afraid that the Sheriffs officers will hurt him physically if

19 they pick him up again.

20 81. Mr. Ortega is afraid that he will be thrown in jail without any explanation,

21 without any rights, and without any opportunity to get help even though the federal

22 government of the United States has issued a Visa to him that gives him permission to

23 be here.

24 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of David and Jessica Rodriguez

25 82. On or about December 2, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. Rodriguez, along with their

26 two young children, visited Lake Bartlett.

27 83. As they were leaving the preserve, while driving on a paved road, they

28 saw a sign that read, "Road Damaged." They could then see that the road ahead was

- 20-

1 washedout by recentrains. Two Sheriff’svehicleswere parkedon the opposite sideof

2 thewash-out.

3 84. Like the motorcycle rider behindhim, Mr. Rodriguez decidedto turn

4 aroundand head theotherway.

5 85. The two Sheriff’s vehiclesfollowed. The deputiesstoppedMr. Rodriguez,

6 themotorcyclenow in front ofthem and anothersedan.

7 86. The deputieslet the motorcycle and sedango in short order, without

8 visibly exchanging anydocumentation.

9 87. When Deputy Matthew Ratcliffe approachedMr. Rodriguez, however,

10 Deputy Ratcliffe askedfor a social security card, driver’s license,vehicle registration

11 andproofofinsurance.

12 88. Mrs. Rodriguez asked DeputyRatcliffe why he neededto see a social

13 securitycard, to which he responded,"standard procedure."

14 89. DeputyRatcliffe thenaskedMr. Rodriguezwhetherhe hadseenthe "Road

15 Closed" sign. Mr. Rodriguez explainedthathe hadseen onlya "RoadDamaged"sign.

16 The Rodriguezeslater discoveredthat therewas a "RoadClosed" sign,but on a part of

17 thepavedroadthat they had nottraveled.

18 90. Deputy Ratcliffe took downMr. Rodriguez’s informationandreturnedto

19 his vehicle.

20 91. While they waited, the Rodriguezes watched anotherdeputy pull over

21 severalothervehicles,andfrom all appearances,theotherdrivers were being givenonly

22 warnings.

23 92. When DeputyRatcliffe returned,Mrs. Rodriguezaskedif they couldbe

24 givenawarninglike eveiyoneelse. He saidno.

25 93. Mrs. Rodrigueztold Deputy Ratcliffe that thiswas selectiveenforcement.

26 She saidthat thislooked like racial profiling.

27 94. Deputy Ratcliffe becamevisibly angiy andgavethem acitation for failure

28 to obey a traffic control device.

-21 -


1 washed out by recent rains. Two Sheriff s vehicles were parked on the opposite side of

2 the wash-out.

3 84. Like the motorcycle rider behind him, Mr. Rodriguez decided to tum

4 around and head the other way.

5 85. The two Sheriff s vehicles followed. The deputies stopped Mr. Rodriguez,

6 the motorcycle (now in front of them) and another sedan.

7 86. The deputies let the motorcycle and sedan go m short order, without

8 visibly exchanging any documentation.

9 87. When Deputy Matthew Ratcliffe approached Mr. Rodriguez, however,

10 Deputy Ratcliffe asked for a social security card, driver's license, vehicle registration

11 and proof of insurance.

12 88. Mrs. Rodriguez asked Deputy Ratcliffe why he needed to see a social

13 security card, to which he responded, "standard procedure."

14 89. Deputy Ratcliffe then asked Mr. Rodriguez whether he had seen the "Road

15 Closed" sign. Mr. Rodriguez explained that he had seen only a "Road Damaged" sign.

16 The Rodriguezes later discovered that there was a "Road Closed" sign, but on a part of

17 the paved road that they had not traveled.

18 90. Deputy Ratcliffe took down Mr. Rodriguez's information and returned to

19 his vehicle.

20 91. While they waited, the Rodriguezes watched another deputy pull over

21 several other vehicles, and from all appearances, the other drivers were being given only

22 warnmgs.

23 92. When Deputy Ratcliffe returned, Mrs. Rodriguez asked if they could be

24 given a warning like everyone else. He said no.

25 93. Mrs. Rodriguez told Deputy Ratcliffe that this was selective enforcement.

26 She said that this looked like racial profiling.

27 94. Deputy Ratcliffe became visibly angry and gave them a citation for failure


- 21 -

1 washed out by recent rains. Two Sheriff s vehicles were parked on the opposite side of

2 the wash-out.

3 84. Like the motorcycle rider behind him, Mr. Rodriguez decided to tum

4 around and head the other way.

5 85. The two Sheriff s vehicles followed. The deputies stopped Mr. Rodriguez,

6 the motorcycle (now in front of them) and another sedan.

7 86. The deputies let the motorcycle and sedan go m short order, without

8 visibly exchanging any documentation.

9 87. When Deputy Matthew Ratcliffe approached Mr. Rodriguez, however,

10 Deputy Ratcliffe asked for a social security card, driver's license, vehicle registration

11 and proof of insurance.

12 88. Mrs. Rodriguez asked Deputy Ratcliffe why he needed to see a social

13 security card, to which he responded, "standard procedure."

14 89. Deputy Ratcliffe then asked Mr. Rodriguez whether he had seen the "Road

15 Closed" sign. Mr. Rodriguez explained that he had seen only a "Road Damaged" sign.

16 The Rodriguezes later discovered that there was a "Road Closed" sign, but on a part of

17 the paved road that they had not traveled.

18 90. Deputy Ratcliffe took down Mr. Rodriguez's information and returned to

19 his vehicle.

20 91. While they waited, the Rodriguezes watched another deputy pull over

21 several other vehicles, and from all appearances, the other drivers were being given only

22 warnmgs.

23 92. When Deputy Ratcliffe returned, Mrs. Rodriguez asked if they could be

24 given a warning like everyone else. He said no.

25 93. Mrs. Rodriguez told Deputy Ratcliffe that this was selective enforcement.

26 She said that this looked like racial profiling.

27 94. Deputy Ratcliffe became visibly angry and gave them a citation for failure


- 21 -

1 95. Deputy Ratcliffe returnedto his vehicle, turned on his siren and yelled

2 over theloud speaker "you’refree to go."

3 96. As Mr. Rodriguez drove to the exit of the preserve,he finally saw the

4 "RoadClosed"sign. He pulledover and waitedon the side ofthe road. Mr. Rodriguez

5 was able to stop and speakwith several drivershe had seenpulled over by Sheriff’s

6 deputies. Not oneof themhad beenaskedfor a socialsecuritycard,and notoneof them

7 had been givena citation. The otherdrivers were all Caucasian.

8 97. The next day, Mrs. Rodriguezfiled a formal complaintwith the MCSO.

9 To date,shehasnot receiveda formal response.

10 The Unlawful Stop and Detention of Velia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr.

11 98. Onor aboutMarch 28, 2008, a little before3:00 p.m.,Ms. Meraz andMr.

12 Nieto drove down the blockfrom their family business, Manuel’sAuto Repair, to the

13 Quick Stopat the cornerof N. CaveCreekandE. NisbetRoads.

14 99. They had the windowsdown, andMs. Merazwas singing alongto Spanish

15 music.

16 100. Pulling into the Quick Stop, theynoticeda Sheriff’s vehicle behindoneof

17 thevehiclesat thepumps. The officer, Deputy AlbertoArmendariz,was speaking with

18 two Latino-lookingmen in handcuffs.

19 101. As soon as Mr. Nieto parked thecar, Deputy Armendarizyelled over to

20 themthat theyshould leave.Ms. Meraz askedwhy.

21 102. Leaving the two handcuffedgentlemen,Deputy Armendariz approached

22 Ms. Meraz andaccusedthem of disturbingthe peace. Ms. Meraz explainedthatshewas

23 just singing to hermusic.

24 103. Deputy Armendariz repeatedthat they had betterleavebefore he arrested

25 them for disorderly conduct. Ms.Meraz said that they wouldleave, but askedthe

26 deputyfor his badgenumber.

27 104. The Deputy then starting speakinginto his radio, evidently calling for

28 additionalofficers.

- 22 -


1 95. Deputy Ratcliffe returned to his vehicle, turned on his siren and yelled

2 over the loud speaker "you're free to go."

3 96. As Mr. Rodriguez drove to the exit of the preserve, he finally saw the

4 "Road Closed" sign. He pulled over and waited on the side of the road. Mr. Rodriguez

5 was able to stop and speak with several drivers he had seen pulled over by Sheriff s

6 deputies. Not one of them had been asked for a social security card, and not one of them

7 had been given a citation. The other drivers were all Caucasian.

8 97. The next day, Mrs. Rodriguez filed a formal complaint with the MCSO.

9 To date, she has not received a formal response.

10 The Unlawful Stop and Detention ofVelia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr.

11 98. On or about March 28, 2008, a little before 3:00 p.m., Ms. Meraz and Mr.

12 Nieto drove down the block from their family business, Manuel's Auto Repair, to the

13 Quick Stop at the comer ofN. Cave Creek and E. Nisbet Roads.

14 99. They had the windows down, and Ms. Meraz was singing along to Spanish

15 mUSIC.

16 100. Pulling into the Quick Stop, they noticed a Sheriffs vehicle behind one of

17 the vehicles at the pumps. The officer, Deputy Alberto Armendariz, was speaking with

18 two Latino-looking men in handcuffs.

19 101. As soon as Mr. Nieto parked the car, Deputy Armendariz yelled over to

20 them that they should leave. Ms. Meraz asked why.

21 102. Leaving the two handcuffed gentlemen, Deputy Armendariz approached

22 Ms. Meraz and accused them of disturbing the peace. Ms. Meraz explained that she was

23 just singing to her music.

24 103. Deputy Armendariz repeated that they had better leave before he arrested

25 them for disorderly conduct. Ms. Meraz said that they would leave, but asked the

26 deputy for his badge number.

27 104. The Deputy then starting speaking into his radio, evidently calling for

28 additional officers.

- 22-

1 95. Deputy Ratcliffe returned to his vehicle, turned on his siren and yelled

2 over the loud speaker "you're free to go."

3 96. As Mr. Rodriguez drove to the exit of the preserve, he finally saw the

4 "Road Closed" sign. He pulled over and waited on the side of the road. Mr. Rodriguez

5 was able to stop and speak with several drivers he had seen pulled over by Sheriff s

6 deputies. Not one of them had been asked for a social security card, and not one of them

7 had been given a citation. The other drivers were all Caucasian.

8 97. The next day, Mrs. Rodriguez filed a formal complaint with the MCSO.

9 To date, she has not received a formal response.

10 The Unlawful Stop and Detention ofVelia Meraz and Manuel Nieto, Jr.

11 98. On or about March 28, 2008, a little before 3:00 p.m., Ms. Meraz and Mr.

12 Nieto drove down the block from their family business, Manuel's Auto Repair, to the

13 Quick Stop at the comer ofN. Cave Creek and E. Nisbet Roads.

14 99. They had the windows down, and Ms. Meraz was singing along to Spanish

15 mUSIC.

16 100. Pulling into the Quick Stop, they noticed a Sheriffs vehicle behind one of

17 the vehicles at the pumps. The officer, Deputy Alberto Armendariz, was speaking with

18 two Latino-looking men in handcuffs.

19 101. As soon as Mr. Nieto parked the car, Deputy Armendariz yelled over to

20 them that they should leave. Ms. Meraz asked why.

21 102. Leaving the two handcuffed gentlemen, Deputy Armendariz approached

22 Ms. Meraz and accused them of disturbing the peace. Ms. Meraz explained that she was

23 just singing to her music.

24 103. Deputy Armendariz repeated that they had better leave before he arrested

25 them for disorderly conduct. Ms. Meraz said that they would leave, but asked the

26 deputy for his badge number.

27 104. The Deputy then starting speaking into his radio, evidently calling for

28 additional officers.

- 22-

1 105. As Mr. Nieto andMs. Meraz pulled out of the Quick Stop, they noticeda

2 motorcycleofficer coming downCaveCreek Road.

3 106. Deputy Armendariz waved at the motorcycle officer, directing him to

4 follow Mr. Nieto andMs. Meraz.

5 107. Mr. Nieto then saw the motorcycle officer and three other Sheriff’s

6 vehiclesbehindthem. The motorcycleofficer told Mr. Nieto to pull over andget out of

7 thecar.

8 108. Mr. Nieto quickly dialed 9-1-1 and reported thathe was being harassedby

9 Sheriff’s officersfor no apparentreason.

10 109. Mr. Nieto’s family businesswas no more than50 yardsaway,so hepulled

11 into theparking lot there.

12 110. The four police vehicles descendedon them, blocking off the street and

13 theirbusiness.The officersjumpedout of theirvehiclesandraisedtheirweapons.

14 111. Among theofficers wereDeputies DouglasBeeksandCesarBrockman.

15 112. An officer grabbedMr. Nieto and pulledhim out of the car. He was

16 pressedface first againsthis car. His arms weretwisted behindhis back andhe was

17 handcuffed.

18 113. An officer thenaskedMr. Nieto if he hadadriver’s license. He responded

19 thathedid.

20 114. The soundof the commotiondrewotherpeoplefrom the repairshop. The

21 officers told them to stayback. The customerswere told that they neededto leaveor be

22 arrested.

23 115. Mr. Nieto was petrified that he was going to be arrestedin front of his

24 family, neighborsandcustomers,thoughhehaddonenothing wrong.

25 116. Mr. Nieto’s father,who hadcomeout ofthe shop,calledout to the officers

26 that the repairshop was his business,that Mr. Nieto andMs. Meraz were his children

27 and that theyall were U.S. citizens.

28

- 23 -


1 105. As Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz pulled out of the Quick Stop, they noticed a

2 motorcycle officer coming down Cave Creek Road.


4 follow Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz.

5 107. Mr. Nieto then saw the motorcycle officer and three other Sheriffs

6 vehicles behind them. The motorcycle officer told Mr. Nieto to pull over and get out of

7 the car.

8 108. Mr. Nieto quickly dialed 9-1-1 and reported that he was being harassed by

9 Sheriff s officers for no apparent reason.

10 109. Mr. Nieto's family business was no more than 50 yards away, so he pulled

11 into the parking lot there.

12 1l0. The four police vehicles descended on them, blocking off the street and

13 their business. The officers jumped out of their vehicles and raised their weapons.

14 Ill. Among the officers were Deputies Douglas Beeks and Cesar Brockman.

15 112. An officer grabbed Mr. Nieto and pulled him out of the car. He was

16 pressed face first against his car. His arms were twisted behind his back and he was

17 handcuffed.

18 113. An officer then asked Mr. Nieto if he had a driver's license. He responded

19 that he did.

20 114. The sound of the commotion drew other people from the repair shop. The

21 officers told them to stay back. The customers were told that they needed to leave or be

22 arrested.

23 115. Mr. Nieto was petrified that he was going to be arrested in front of his

24 family, neighbors and customers, though he had done nothing wrong.

25 116. Mr. Nieto's father, who had come out of the shop, called out to the officers

26 that the repair shop was his business, that Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were his children

27 and that they all were U.S. citizens.

28

- 23 -

1 105. As Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz pulled out of the Quick Stop, they noticed a

2 motorcycle officer coming down Cave Creek Road.


4 follow Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz.

5 107. Mr. Nieto then saw the motorcycle officer and three other Sheriffs

6 vehicles behind them. The motorcycle officer told Mr. Nieto to pull over and get out of

7 the car.

8 108. Mr. Nieto quickly dialed 9-1-1 and reported that he was being harassed by

9 Sheriff s officers for no apparent reason.

10 109. Mr. Nieto's family business was no more than 50 yards away, so he pulled

11 into the parking lot there.

12 1l0. The four police vehicles descended on them, blocking off the street and

13 their business. The officers jumped out of their vehicles and raised their weapons.

14 Ill. Among the officers were Deputies Douglas Beeks and Cesar Brockman.

15 112. An officer grabbed Mr. Nieto and pulled him out of the car. He was

16 pressed face first against his car. His arms were twisted behind his back and he was

17 handcuffed.

18 113. An officer then asked Mr. Nieto if he had a driver's license. He responded

19 that he did.

20 114. The sound of the commotion drew other people from the repair shop. The

21 officers told them to stay back. The customers were told that they needed to leave or be

22 arrested.

23 115. Mr. Nieto was petrified that he was going to be arrested in front of his

24 family, neighbors and customers, though he had done nothing wrong.

25 116. Mr. Nieto's father, who had come out of the shop, called out to the officers

26 that the repair shop was his business, that Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were his children

27 and that they all were U.S. citizens.

28

- 23 -

1 117. The officers immediatelybacked down and lowered theirweapons. Mr.

2 Nieto was let out of the handcuffs. The officers askedfor his identification and ranit

3 throughtheir computersystem. They did not give him anycitation.

4 118. Mr. Nieto askedwhy theofficers hadsubjectedhim andhis sisterto such

5 treatment. He wasnot given anyexplanation,nor anyapology.

6 119. Upon information and belief, Mr. Nieto and Ms. Meraz were targeted

7 becausethey look Latino. Upon information andbelief, what happenedto them was

8 part ofthe sweepgoing on at thattime on Cave Creek Road.

9 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10 120. This is a class action seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief under

11 FederalRule of Civil Procedure23b2 on behalfof Plaintiffs andall other similarly

12 situatedindividuals.

13 121. The class that Plaintiffs seek to representconsistsof all Latino persons

14 who, since Januaiy 2007, have been orwill be in the future, stopped, detained,

15 questionedor searchedby MCSO agentswhile driving or sitting in avehicle on apublic

16 roadway orparking areain MaricopaCounty, Arizona. This classis so numerousthat

17 joinderof all membersis impracticable.

18 122. There are questionsof law andfact commonto all membersof the class

19 and all class members have been directly affected by the challenged actions of

20 Defendants. Each putativeclass memberhas been orwill be subjectedto arbitrary,

21 racially-motivated, discriminatoiystops,questioning,detentions,arrestsand/orsearches

22 conductedby Defendants. Each putativeclassmemberhasbeen orwill be subjectedto

23 stops,detentions,interrogationsand/or searches,pretextually,without consent,without

24 any reasonable, articulable suspicionor probable causethat such classmember had

25 committed a crime or was engagedin criminal or other unlawful activity, and in a

26 mannerto which Caucasiandrivers andpassengersin vehiclesin MaricopaCounty are

27 generallynot subjected.

28

- 24 -


1 117. The officers immediately backed down and lowered their weapons. Mr.

2 Nieto was let out of the handcuffs. The officers asked for his identification and ran it

3 through their computer system. They did not give him any citation.

4 118. Mr. Nieto asked why the officers had subjected him and his sister to such

5 treatment. He was not given any explanation, nor any apology.


7 because they look Latino. Upon information and belief, what happened to them was

8 part of the sweep going on at that time on Cave Creek Road.

9 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10 120. This is a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

12 situated individuals.

13 121. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all Latino persons

14 who, SInce January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained,

15 questioned or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public

16 roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona. This class is so numerous that

17 joinder of all members is impracticable.

18 122. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class


20 Defendants. Each putative class member has been or will be subjected to arbitrary,

21 racially-motivated, discriminatory stops, questioning, detentions, arrests and/or searches

22 conducted by Defendants. Each putative class member has been or will be subjected to

23 stops, detentions, interrogations and/or searches, pretextually, without consent, without

24 any reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause that such class member had

25 committed a crime or was engaged in criminal or other unlawful activity, and in a

26 manner to which Caucasian drivers and passengers in vehicles in Maricopa County are

27 generally not subjected.

28

- 24-

1 117. The officers immediately backed down and lowered their weapons. Mr.

2 Nieto was let out of the handcuffs. The officers asked for his identification and ran it

3 through their computer system. They did not give him any citation.

4 118. Mr. Nieto asked why the officers had subjected him and his sister to such

5 treatment. He was not given any explanation, nor any apology.


7 because they look Latino. Upon information and belief, what happened to them was

8 part of the sweep going on at that time on Cave Creek Road.

9 CLASS ALLEGATIONS

10 120. This is a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) on behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly

12 situated individuals.

13 121. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all Latino persons

14 who, SInce January 2007, have been or will be in the future, stopped, detained,

15 questioned or searched by MCSO agents while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public

16 roadway or parking area in Maricopa County, Arizona. This class is so numerous that

17 joinder of all members is impracticable.

18 122. There are questions of law and fact common to all members of the class


20 Defendants. Each putative class member has been or will be subjected to arbitrary,

21 racially-motivated, discriminatory stops, questioning, detentions, arrests and/or searches

22 conducted by Defendants. Each putative class member has been or will be subjected to

23 stops, detentions, interrogations and/or searches, pretextually, without consent, without

24 any reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause that such class member had

25 committed a crime or was engaged in criminal or other unlawful activity, and in a

26 manner to which Caucasian drivers and passengers in vehicles in Maricopa County are

27 generally not subjected.

28

- 24-

1 123. The claims anddefensesof the representativePlaintiffs are typical of the

2 claimsanddefensesof theclass.

3 124. The representativePlaintiffs will fairly andadequatelyprotectthe interests

4 of theclass.

5 125. Defendantsin this case have taken actions in violation of the class

6 members’constitutionalrights and/orrefusedto act in accordancewith those rights,

7 which are grounds generally applicableto the class, therebymaking appropriatefinal

8 injunctive relief and correspondingdeclaratoryrelief with respectto the class as a

9 whole.

10 126. Plaintiffs’ counselis competentand experiencedin classaction litigation

11 of thetype broughthere.

12 REQUISITES FOR RELIEF

13 127. As a result of the conductof Defendantsdescribedabove,Plaintiffs have

14 beendeniedtheir constitutionalandcivil rights. Defendants’policies, practices, conduct

15 andacts allegedherein haveresultedandwill continueto result in irreparableinjury to

16 Plaintiffs, includingbut not limitedto further violations of their constitutionalandcivil

17 rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequateor completeremedy at law to addressthe

18 wrongs described herein. Plaintiffs therefore seek injunctive relief restraining

19 Defendantsfrom continuingto engagein andenforcethe unlawful and unconstitutional

20 policies, practices, conductandacts describedherein.

21 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTIONFourteenth Amendment

22128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the

23preceding paragraphsofthis Complaintas if fully set forth herein.

24129. As Latinopersons, Plaintiffsaremembersof aprotectedclass.

25130. As Latino persons,those individuals stopped, detained, questionedor

26searchedby MCSO agentsduring the classperiod aremembersof aprotectedclass.

27

28

- 25 -


1 123. The claims and defenses of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the

2 claims and defenses of the class.

3 124. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests

4 of the class.

5 125. Defendants in this case have taken actions III violation of the class

6 members' constitutional rights and/or refused to act in accordance with those rights,

7 which are grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final

8 injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

9 whole.

10 126. Plaintiffs' counsel is competent and experienced in class action litigation

11 of the type brought here.


13 127. As a result of the conduct of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs have

14 been denied their constitutional and civil rights. Defendants' policies, practices, conduct

15 and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to

16 Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their constitutional and civil

17 rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the


19 Defendants from continuing to engage in and enforce the unlawful and unconstitutional

20 policies, practices, conduct and acts described herein.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTION(Fourteenth Amendment)


preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

129. As Latino persons, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class.

130. As Latino persons, those individuals stopped, detained, questioned or

searched by MCSO agents during the class period are members of a protected class.

- 25 -

1 123. The claims and defenses of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of the

2 claims and defenses of the class.

3 124. The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests

4 of the class.

5 125. Defendants in this case have taken actions III violation of the class

6 members' constitutional rights and/or refused to act in accordance with those rights,

7 which are grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final

8 injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a

9 whole.

10 126. Plaintiffs' counsel is competent and experienced in class action litigation

11 of the type brought here.


13 127. As a result of the conduct of Defendants described above, Plaintiffs have

14 been denied their constitutional and civil rights. Defendants' policies, practices, conduct

15 and acts alleged herein have resulted and will continue to result in irreparable injury to

16 Plaintiffs, including but not limited to further violations of their constitutional and civil

17 rights. Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to address the


19 Defendants from continuing to engage in and enforce the unlawful and unconstitutional

20 policies, practices, conduct and acts described herein.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: EQUAL PROTECTION(Fourteenth Amendment)


preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

129. As Latino persons, Plaintiffs are members of a protected class.

130. As Latino persons, those individuals stopped, detained, questioned or

searched by MCSO agents during the class period are members of a protected class.

- 25 -

1 131. Defendants, actingunder color of law and in concertwith one another,

2 engaged,andcontinuedto engage,in profiling and discriminatoiytreatmentof Plaintiffs

3 andotherLatino individualsbasedon their race, colorand/orethnicity.

4 132. Defendantshave acted pretextually, with racial motivation and without

5 reasonable suspicionor probable causeto stop, detain, question, search and/orarrest

6 Plaintiffs or anyof theotherLatino individuals referredto above.

7 133. By purposefully stopping, detaining, questioning, searchingand/or

8 arresting Plaintiffsandsubjectingthemto different, burdensomeandinjurious treatment

9 becauseof their race, color and/or ethnicity, Defendants deprived Plaintiffsand

10 membersof the plaintiff classof the equalprotectionof the lawwithin the meaningof

11 the Fourteenth Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. TheseactionsviolatedPlaintiffs’

12 andclassmembers’ Fourteenth Amendmentrights and42 U.S.C. § 1983.


14 exceededand/orabusedthe authority grantedto themunderstateandfederal law.

15 135. By their conduct describedabove, Defendantsin general,and Arpaio in

16 particular, havedevised and implementeda policy, customand practice of illegally

17 stopping, detaining,questioningor searchingLatino individuals becauseof their race,

18 color and/orethnicity.

19 136. Defendants’ actionshave causedandwill continueto causePlaintiffs and

20 other similarly situated individualsto suffer public humiliation andadditional harms,

21 andbe subjectedto unlawful discrimination unlesstheseactionsarestopped.

22 137. As a direct, proximate resultof Defendants’wrongful conduct,Plaintiffs

23 andclassmembershave sufferedandwill continueto suffer significant andsubstantial

24 emotionalharmandadditional injuries.

25 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZUREFourth and Fourteenth Amendments

26138. Plaintiffs herebyincorporateby referenceall allegationsof the preceding

27paragraphsof thisComplaintas if fully setforth herein.

28

- 26 -


1 131. Defendants, acting under color of law and in concert with one another,

2 engaged, and continued to engage, in profiling and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs

3 and other Latino individuals based on their race, color and/or ethnicity.

4 132. Defendants have acted pretextually, with racial motivation and without

5 reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop, detain, question, search and/or arrest

6 Plaintiffs or any of the other Latino individuals referred to above.

7 133. By purposefully stopping, detaining, questioning, searching and/or

8 arresting Plaintiffs and subjecting them to different, burdensome and injurious treatment

9 because of their race, color and/or ethnicity, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and

10 members of the plaintiff class of the equal protection of the law within the meaning of

11 the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These actions violated Plaintiffs'

12 and class members' Fourteenth Amendment rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.


14 exceeded and/or abused the authority granted to them under state and federal law.

15 135. By their conduct described above, Defendants in general, and Arpaio in

16 particular, have devised and implemented a policy, custom and practice of illegally

17 stopping, detaining, questioning or searching Latino individuals because of their race,

18 color and/or ethnicity.

19 136. Defendants' actions have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and

20 other similarly situated individuals to suffer public humiliation and additional harms,

21 and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are stopped.

22 137. As a direct, proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27

28

and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer significant and substantial

emotional harm and additional injuries.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)

138. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

- 26-


2 engaged, and continued to engage, in profiling and discriminatory treatment of Plaintiffs

3 and other Latino individuals based on their race, color and/or ethnicity.

4 132. Defendants have acted pretextually, with racial motivation and without

5 reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop, detain, question, search and/or arrest

6 Plaintiffs or any of the other Latino individuals referred to above.

7 133. By purposefully stopping, detaining, questioning, searching and/or

8 arresting Plaintiffs and subjecting them to different, burdensome and injurious treatment

9 because of their race, color and/or ethnicity, Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and

10 members of the plaintiff class of the equal protection of the law within the meaning of

11 the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These actions violated Plaintiffs'

12 and class members' Fourteenth Amendment rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.



15 135. By their conduct described above, Defendants in general, and Arpaio in

16 particular, have devised and implemented a policy, custom and practice of illegally

17 stopping, detaining, questioning or searching Latino individuals because of their race,

18 color and/or ethnicity.




22 137. As a direct, proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs

23

24

25

26

27

28

and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer significant and substantial

emotional harm and additional injuries.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE(Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments)



- 26-

1 139. Pursuant to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.

2 Constitution, stateandlocal governmentsare prohibitedfrom conductingunreasonable

3 searchesandseizures.


5 stopped,seized, searched,arrestedand/or impermissibly extendedstops of Plaintiffs,

6 pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and withoutprobablecauseor reasonable

7 suspicionthat they had violated thelaw. Such conductviolated the FourthAmendment

8 guaranteeagainstunreasonablesearchesand seizures,the Fourteenth Amendmentand

9 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10 141. Upon information and belief, Arpaio and the other Defendants,acting

11 undercolor of law andin concertwith one another,have engagedin a custom,practice

12 and policyof stopping, seizing, searchingandarrestingLatino individuals in Maricopa

13 County, pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and withoutprobable causeor

14 reasonable suspicionthat they hadcommittedany crime.


16 exceededand/orabusedthe authority grantedto themunderstateandfederal law.




20 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OFARIZONA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, § 8

21144. Plaintiffs herebyincorporateby referenceall allegationsof the preceding

22paragraphsof thisComplaintas if fully setforth herein.

23145. Article II, § 8 of the ArizonaConstitutionprovides: "No personshall be

24disturbedin his private affairs, or his homeinvaded,without authorityof law."

25146. By their wrongful conduct describedabove, Defendants, actingunder

26color of law and in concertwith one another,have violated therights guaranteedto

27

28

- 27 -



2 Constitution, state and local governments are prohibited from conducting umeasonable

3 searches and seizures.


5 stopped, seized, searched, arrested and/or impermissibly extended stops of Plaintiffs,

6 pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or reasonable

7 suspicion that they had violated the law. Such conduct violated the Fourth Amendment

8 guarantee against umeasonable searches and seizures, the Fourteenth Amendment and

9 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10 141. Upon information and belief, Arpaio and the other Defendants, acting

11 under color of law and in concert with one another, have engaged in a custom, practice

12 and policy of stopping, seizing, searching and arresting Latino individuals in Maricopa

13 County, pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or





18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

other similarly situated individuals to suffer public humiliation and additional harms,

and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are stopped.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OFARIZONA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, § 8



145. Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides: "No person shall be

disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

146. By their wrongful conduct described above, Defendants, acting under

color of law and in concert with one another, have violated the rights guaranteed to

- 27-


2 Constitution, state and local governments are prohibited from conducting umeasonable

3 searches and seizures.


5 stopped, seized, searched, arrested and/or impermissibly extended stops of Plaintiffs,

6 pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or reasonable

7 suspicion that they had violated the law. Such conduct violated the Fourth Amendment


9 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10 141. Upon information and belief, Arpaio and the other Defendants, acting

11 under color of law and in concert with one another, have engaged in a custom, practice

12 and policy of stopping, seizing, searching and arresting Latino individuals in Maricopa

13 County, pretextually, for racially motivated reasons and without probable cause or





18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

other similarly situated individuals to suffer public humiliation and additional harms,

and be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless these actions are stopped.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: VIOLATION OFARIZONA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE II, § 8



145. Article II, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution provides: "No person shall be

disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

146. By their wrongful conduct described above, Defendants, acting under

color of law and in concert with one another, have violated the rights guaranteed to

- 27-

1 Plaintiffs andother similarly situatedindividuals underArticle II, § 8 of the Arizona

2 Constitution.




6 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF: RACE DISCRIMINATIONIN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS

7 DefendantsMCSO and Maricopa County

8 148. Plaintiffs herebyincorporateby referenceall allegationsof the preceding

9 paragraphsof thisComplaintas if fully setforth herein.

10 149. Title VI ofthe Civil RightsAct of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d,provides:i. [N]o personin the UnitedStatesshall, on the groundof race,color,

11 or nationalorigin, be excludedfrom participation in, be deniedbenefitsof, or be subjectedto discriminationunder anyprogramor

12 activity receivingfederal financial assistance.

13 150. DefendantMCSO is the law enforcement agencyfor MaricopaCounty,

14 Arizona, and receives federal funding and other financial assistancefrom the

15 Departmentof Justiceand other federal agencies. As a recipientof federal financial

16 assistance,MCSO is requiredto conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory

17 manner pursuantto Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

18 151. DefendantCounty of Maricopa is a political subdivision of the State of

19 Arizona and, as a recipientof federal funds, is requiredto conduct its activities in a20 racially non-discriminatory manner pursuantto Title VI ofthe Civil RightsAct of 1964.

21 152. FederalregulationsimplementingTitle VI further providethatno program

22 receiving financial assistancethrough the DOJshall utilize criteria or methods of

23 administrationwhich havethe effectof subjecting individualsto discriminationbecause24 of their race, colorand/or ethnicity, or have the effect of defeatingor substantially

25 impairing accomplishmentof the objectivesof the programas respectsindividuals of a26 particularrace, colorand/orethnicity.

27

28

- 28 -


1 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals under Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

2 Constitution.





7 (Defendants MCSO and Maricopa County)

8 148. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding

9 paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

149. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides:i. [N]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color,

or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be deniedbenefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program oractivity receiving federal financial assistance.

150. Defendant MCSO is the law enforcement agency for Maricopa County,

Arizona, and receives federal funding and other financial assistance from the

Department of Justice and other federal agencies. As a recipient of federal financial

assistance, MCSO is required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory

manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

151. Defendant County of Maricopa is a political subdivision of the State of

Arizona and, as a recipient of federal funds, is required to conduct its activities in a

racially non-discriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

152. Federal regulations implementing Title VI further provide that no program

receiving financial assistance through the DOJ shall utilize criteria or methods of

administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because

of their race, color and/or ethnicity, or have the effect of defeating or substantially

impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a

particular race, color and/or ethnicity.

- 28 -

1 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals under Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

2 Constitution.





7 (Defendants MCSO and Maricopa County)

8 148. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding

9 paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

149. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000d, provides:i. [N]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color,

or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be deniedbenefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program oractivity receiving federal financial assistance.

150. Defendant MCSO is the law enforcement agency for Maricopa County,

Arizona, and receives federal funding and other financial assistance from the

Department of Justice and other federal agencies. As a recipient of federal financial

assistance, MCSO is required to conduct its activities in a racially non-discriminatory

manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

151. Defendant County of Maricopa is a political subdivision of the State of

Arizona and, as a recipient of federal funds, is required to conduct its activities in a

racially non-discriminatory manner pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

152. Federal regulations implementing Title VI further provide that no program

receiving financial assistance through the DOJ shall utilize criteria or methods of

administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because

of their race, color and/or ethnicity, or have the effect of defeating or substantially

impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a

particular race, color and/or ethnicity.

- 28 -

1 153. The methods employedby Arpaio, MCSO and MaricopaCounty

2 discriminateagainstindividuals basedon their race, colorand/or ethnicity as described

3 herein.

4 154. Defendants MCSO’sand MaricopaCounty’s violations of 42 U.S.C.

5 § 2000d and its implementing regulationshave caused and will continue to cause

6 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individualspublic humiliation and additional

7 harms in that theywill continueto be subjectedto unlawful discrimination unlessit is

8 stopped.

9 DEMAND FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE,Plaintiffs, individually andon behalfof a classof all those

11 similarly situated, respectfully demandjudgment againstDefendants awardingthe

12 following:

13 A. A declaratoryjudgment pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202

14 that Defendantshave engagedin discriminationbasedon race, colorand/or ethnicity

15 anddeniedPlaintiffs andplaintiff class equalprotectionof the laws in violation of the

16 Fourteenth Amendmentto theU.S. Constitutionand42 U.S.C. § 1983;

17 B. A declaratoryjudgment pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202

18 that Defendants’ stops,interrogations,detentions,searchesand/or arrestsof Plaintiffs

19 andothersimilarly situated individualswithout probablecauseorreasonable, articulable

20 suspicionto believe that they hadcommitteda crime violated the FourthAmendment

21 guaranteeagainstunreasonablesearchesand seizures,the Fourteenth Amendmentand

22 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

23 C. A declaratoryjudgment pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202

24 thatDefendants’ actionsareunconstitutionalbecausetheyviolate therights of Plaintiffs

25 and other similarly situated individuals providedby Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

26 Constitution;

27

28

- 29 -


1 153. The methods employed by Arpaio, MCSO and Maricopa County

2 discriminate against individuals based on their race, color and/or ethnicity as described

3 herein.

4 154. Defendants MCSO's and Maricopa County's violations of 42 U.S.C.

5 § 2000d and its implementing regulations have caused and will continue to cause

6 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals public humiliation and additional

7 harms in that they will continue to be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless it is

8 stopped.

9 DEMAND FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of all those

11 similarly situated, respectfully demand judgment against Defendants awarding the

12 following:

13 A. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

14 that Defendants have engaged in discrimination based on race, color and/or ethnicity

15 and denied Plaintiffs and plaintiff class equal protection of the laws in violation of the

16 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

17 B. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

18 that Defendants' stops, interrogations, detentions, searches and/or arrests of Plaintiffs

19 and other similarly situated individuals without probable cause or reasonable, articulable

20 suspicion to believe that they had committed a crime violated the Fourth Amendment


22 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

23 C. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

24 that Defendants' actions are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of Plaintiffs

25 and other similarly situated individuals provided by Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

26 Constitution;

27

28

- 29-

1 153. The methods employed by Arpaio, MCSO and Maricopa County

2 discriminate against individuals based on their race, color and/or ethnicity as described

3 herein.

4 154. Defendants MCSO's and Maricopa County's violations of 42 U.S.C.

5 § 2000d and its implementing regulations have caused and will continue to cause

6 Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals public humiliation and additional

7 harms in that they will continue to be subjected to unlawful discrimination unless it is

8 stopped.

9 DEMAND FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of a class of all those

11 similarly situated, respectfully demand judgment against Defendants awarding the

12 following:

13 A. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

14 that Defendants have engaged in discrimination based on race, color and/or ethnicity

15 and denied Plaintiffs and plaintiff class equal protection of the laws in violation of the

16 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

17 B. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

18 that Defendants' stops, interrogations, detentions, searches and/or arrests of Plaintiffs

19 and other similarly situated individuals without probable cause or reasonable, articulable

20 suspicion to believe that they had committed a crime violated the Fourth Amendment


22 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

23 C. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

24 that Defendants' actions are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of Plaintiffs

25 and other similarly situated individuals provided by Article II, § 8 of the Arizona

26 Constitution;

27

28

- 29-

1 D. A declaratoryjudgment pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202

2 that Defendants engagedin race discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil

3 RightsAct of 1964 and42 C.F.R. § 101 etseq.;

4 E. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibitingDefendants

5 from continuingto engagein suchrace, color and/or ethnicity-based discriminationas

6 describedherein andto put into place safeguards sufficientto ensure that such

7 discriminationdoesnot continuein the future;

8 F. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibitingDefendants

9 from exceedingthelimits of their authority under theMOA andstateandfederal law;

10 G. An awardof attorneys’feesandcosts of suit, plus interest,pursuant

11 to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

12 H. Suchother relief asthe Court deemsjustandproper.

13 DATED this 16th dayof July2008.

14

15 STEPTOE& JOHNSONLLP

16

17 By /s/DavidJ.BodneyDavid J. Bodney

18 PeterS. KozinetsKarenJ. Hartman-Tellez

19 IsaacP. HernandezCollier Center

20 201 EastWashingtonStreetSuite 1600

21 Phoenix,Arizona 85004-2382

22

23 ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONADaniel Pochoda24P.O. Box 17148

25 Phoenix,Arizona 85011-0148Telephone:602 650-1854

26 Facsimile: 602 650-1376

27

28

- 30 -


1 D. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

2 that Defendants engaged in race discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil

3 Rights Act of 1964 and 42 C.F.R. § 101 et seq.;

4 E. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants

5 from continuing to engage in such race, color andlor ethnicity-based discrimination as

6 described herein and to put into place safeguards sufficient to ensure that such

7 discrimination does not continue in the future;

8 F. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants

9 from exceeding the limits of their authority under the MOA and state and federallaw;

10 G. An award of attorneys' fees and costs of suit, plus interest, pursuant

11 to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

DATED this 16th day of July 2008.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

By lsi David 1. BodneyDavid 1. BodneyPeter S. KozinetsKaren 1. Hartman-TellezIsaac P. HernandezCollier Center201 East Washington StreetSuite 1600Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONADaniel PochodaP.O. Box 17148Phoenix, Arizona 85011-0148Telephone: (602) 650-1854Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

- 30 -

1 D. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202

2 that Defendants engaged in race discrimination in violation of Title VI of the Civil

3 Rights Act of 1964 and 42 C.F.R. § 101 et seq.;

4 E. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants

5 from continuing to engage in such race, color andlor ethnicity-based discrimination as

6 described herein and to put into place safeguards sufficient to ensure that such

7 discrimination does not continue in the future;

8 F. A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants

9 from exceeding the limits of their authority under the MOA and state and federallaw;

10 G. An award of attorneys' fees and costs of suit, plus interest, pursuant

11 to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

DATED this 16th day of July 2008.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP

By lsi David 1. BodneyDavid 1. BodneyPeter S. KozinetsKaren 1. Hartman-TellezIsaac P. HernandezCollier Center201 East Washington StreetSuite 1600Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2382

ACLU FOUNDATION OF ARIZONADaniel PochodaP.O. Box 17148Phoenix, Arizona 85011-0148Telephone: (602) 650-1854Facsimile: (602) 650-1376

- 30 -

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES1 UNION FOUNDATION

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS PROJECT2 Robin Goldfaden

3 MonicaM. RamIrez39 Drumm Street

4 SanFrancisco, California94111Telephone:415 343-0770Facsimile: 415 395-0950

6MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL

7 DEFENSE ANDEDUCATIONALFUND

8 KristinaM. Campbell

9 NancyRamirez634 South SpringStreet, 11th Floor

10 Los Angeles, California90014

11 Telephone:213 629-2512x136Facsimile: 213 629-0266

12Attorneysfor Plaintiffs

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27561437

28


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

- 31 -

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION FOUNDATIONIMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECTRobin Go1dfadenMonica M. Ramirez39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0770Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGALDEFENSE AND EDUCATIONALFUNDKristina M. CampbellNancy Ramirez634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90014Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x136Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

561437

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

- 31 -

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION FOUNDATIONIMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECTRobin Go1dfadenMonica M. Ramirez39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 343-0770Facsimile: (415) 395-0950

MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGALDEFENSE AND EDUCATIONALFUNDKristina M. CampbellNancy Ramirez634 South Spring Street, 11th FloorLos Angeles, California 90014Telephone: (213) 629-2512 x136Facsimile: (213) 629-0266

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

561437

1 steptoe & johnson 1 steptoe llp - amazon s3...case 2:07-cv-02513-mhm document 18 filed...

Documents