arpaio's letter to the doj

8/3/2019 Arpaio's letter to the DOJ

1/38

Wrrrnu B. Jorurs, Jn.TETEPfloNE: (602) 263.1i14Fnx: (602) 200-7801E.MAil.: [email protected] T. MlsrrRsoruTETEPHoNE: (002) 263-7330Fnx: (602) 200-7846E-MArt: [email protected] J. Popouzro*TETEPHoNE: (602) 263-1 741Fnx: (6021 200.7876E.MAr[: JPoPouzro@JsHfl BM.coM*A[so ADMTTTED rN CoNNEcilcuT

AND WASHTNGT0N, D.C.

QIJ|ffaN&\JT I HoCHULI, P.L.C. zgfl I IIIOnTH CENTRAT AVENUESUrTE 800PHoEilrx, AnrzoNA 85012PH0NE: (6021 263-1700trx: (6021 651-75SSWWW.JSHFIM.COM

January 4,2012

Thomas E. PerezAssistant Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSpecial Litigation Section950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWV/ashington, DC 20530-000 1Re: U.S. v. MCSO, et al.CV 1 O- 1 0878-PHX-GMS

Dear Mr. Perez:This letter is in response to your December 15,2011 letter in which you set forththe Department of Justice's 'ofindings" of its investigation into alleged civil rights violations ofthe Maricopa County Sheriffs Office ("MCSO"). Your letter specifically demanded that weinform you of whether the MCSO is interested in participating in constructive dialogue by theclose of business on January 4, 2012. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpio nd the MCSO re certnlynterested in prticipating in constructive dilogue, but constructve dalogue cn only occur ifthe DOJ provdes the f.cts and nformtion on which it bases itsJindings.Good Faith Voluntarv Efforts Of Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSOThe good faith efforts of Sheriff Arpaio, MCSO personnel, and counsel to achievecompliance by voluntary means are undeniable. To deem that the MCSO is not engaged in goodfaith efforts to achieve compliance voluntarily simply due to a request for the factual basis of theDOJ's findings, would be an alarming and cavalier dismissal of the serious underlying issues ofand the MCSO's extensive, voluntary, continued cooperation with the DOJ's investigation.

2729738.1


2/38

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2During yorrr press conference and in your December 15, 20ll letter, you

emphasized the strained relations between the MCSO and its former counsel and the DOJ. Thatdispute between the parties over the scope of the investigation, and the DOJ's associated requestsfor information and unfettered access to MCSO facilities and personnel, was ancient history atthe time of the conference. The lawsuit that stemmed from that dispute was dismissed byagreement of the parties and that dismissal occurred due to the voluntary cooperation of theMCSO in providing access to facilities and personnel, as well as a staggering amount ofdocumentation and information pursuant to the DOJ's request. As you are well aware, however,the parties have worked incredibly well together in furtherance of the DOJ's investigation forwell over a year, despite the portrayal of their relationship and of MCSO's supposed lack ofcooperation. The cooperation that the DOJ enjoyed, and still enjoys in this investigation, was notmerely the product of the attomeys involved, but of Sheriff Arpaio, and MCSO command staffofficers and personnel. I

The failure to accurately portray MCSO's cooperation publicly was unfortunateand misleading. In our impromptu December 15, 2011 meeting with DOJ attorneys Roy Austin,Avner Shapiro, Peter Gray, and Jonathon Smith, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austinprivately thanked us for the cooperation and efforts that enabled the DOJ to conduct thisinvestigation. That was the DOJ's acknowledgement of the of the MCSO's voluntarycooperation with the DOJ's investigation, albeit, until now, merely a private acknowledgement.Mr. Austin's private expression of gratitude was also accompanied by an apology,which also was not mentioned in your press conference, or otherwise shared with MCSO

personnel, the citizens of Maricopa County or the public at large. Mr. Austin specificallyapologized to us for not being able to control the timing or manner of the announcement of theinvestigation's findings, despite his earlier promise that if the MCSO fully cooperated with theDOJ's investigation, a politicization of this investigation would not occur. Instead, thisinvestigation became a political sideshow with your surprise press conference and issuance offindings, despite the assurances of the DOJ personnel in our initial meeting on November 2,2010 that it would not. In light of the DOJ's assurances, we do not consider notif,rcation of thesefindings and your press conference at a meeting held ninety (90) minutes before that conferenceto be adequate notice. V/hile Mr. Austin telephoned to request a meeting with us the eveningbefore your press conference, he did so at the close of business and without the courtesy ofdisclosing the subject matter of that prospective meeting. Blind-sided, we again express ourdissatisfaction with the manner in which the DOJ chose to announce its findings.Nevertheless, regardless of this political gamesmanship, the undisclosed brokenpromise and apology, and the misleading portrayal of this matter to the media, we stand ready toparticipate in the constructive dialogue you have suggested.

tPlese see Exhibit I attached hereto for abriefswnmary of MCSO's cooperation with thisinvestigation.2729738.t


3/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 3The Desired "Constructive DialogFe"We, too, preer to resolve ths matter wthout litaton, but wll not cower at thethret of ltigaton, either. While we are also interested in participating in constructive dialogue,we submit that constructive dialogue can only occur if the DOJ provides the underlying facts andinformation for its findings. The broad description that the DOJ has provided regarding itsinvestigation of MCSO's practices, along with its vague outline of its findings, does not provide"fair notice" of any alleged violation as the DOJ contends. In fact, we are struck by the dearth offacts contained in your 22 page, December 15, 20ll letter, and are shocked by the presentationof conclusions unaccompanied by factual specificity.During our December 15, 2011 meeting, your staff stated that the DOJ would

possibly share some information and facts that provide the foundation of the findings containedin your December 15,2011 letter. Only with all of the underlying facts and information relevantto the DOJ's conclusions in hand, however, can we truly evaluate these findings, determine theirmerit and make any necessary changes and adjustments to the MCSO to attain our mutuallystated goal: ensuring that MCSO functions effectively, efficiently and constitutionally. Yet,subsequent to that meeting, the DOJ seems to have abandoned its position of even providingsome of the facts to support its findings.Recently, a Justice Department spokesperson, Xochitl Hinojosa, stated that theDOJ would neither make public the statistical study upon which the DOJ relies, nor provide it tothe MCSO unless it was ompelled to do so in "exprt discovery."2 Ms. Hinojosa's comments

clearly allude to litigation. and may certainly reveal the DOJ's position that proceeding tolitigation is unavoidable, if we dare to request the factual bases of its findings. If the DOJ'sstance is to conceal the facts underlying its findings unless it is forced to reveal them inlitigation, that stance is absurd, counterproductive, unfortunate, and contrary to its guidelines.The Guidelines for the Enforcement of Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 28 CFR

$50.3, require that aconcerted effort be made to persuade any allegedly non-complying applicantor recipient to voluntarily comply with Title VL The MCSO vehemently contends that it doesnot discriminate against Latinos, or anyone for that matter; it, therefore, contends that it is in fullcompliance with all Constitutional mandates. All we seek is the facts on which you rely insupport of your statements to the contrary.These guidelines further require that efforts to secure voluntary complianceshould be pursued at every stage of an enforcement action. While a suit f,rled with the intent toenforce compliance is within the DOJ's arsenal, the filing of a lawsuit would require a totaldisregard of MCSO's voluntary cooperation, will result in great financial cost to taxpayers atboth the federal and local level, as well as the delayed conclusion of this investigation and thesupposed reforms that the DOJ seeks. Litigation, therefore, is something that the parties mustmake every effort to avoid. Ironically, the DOJ sued Sheriff Arpaio to compel the production of

2 See "Profiling Proof Must be Public." The Arizona Republic 30 December 201l: 86. Print.2729738.1


4/38

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 4information it requested, while it appears that the DOJ may now file suit to prevent thedisclosure of information Sheriff Arpaio now requests that is relevant to the same investigation.

In addition, in its Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation andResolution of Complaints Alleging Violations of Title VI and Other Non-DiscriminationStatutes, the DOJ defines reliabl .rrid"tt.. as "that which is dependable and trustworthy."3 Itfurther explains that "[r]eliability is a relative concept and requires the exercise of judgment."uVy'e are merely requesting the opportunity to conduct our own weighing of the reliability of theevidence in your possession.Moreover, it appears to us that your December 15, 2011 Summary of Findings is aLetter of Findings ("LOF"), as opposed to an Investigative Report ("IR"), as defined in the

Manual. A LOF, according to the DOJ, is issued when the investigation, as here, is incompleteand does not include the specificity of an IR.) Please let us know whether the DOJ intends todraft an IR in the future and, if so, whether it intends to allow the MCSO (the "recipient") tooffer rebuttal evidence or a position statement.6 V/e submit that rebutting the evidence the DOJpossesses is impossible due to the DOJ's disclosure of mere conclusions without fact.Furthermore, it appears that the Manual also requires the presentation of bothsides of the complain(s) where-the investigation has revealed different versions of the facts.TThe DOJ presented conclusions of interviews of unidentified witnesses, failed to provide specificcitations to sources of information, now publicly refuses to provide expert reports and, generally,appears intent on stymieing any attempt to assess the evidence it claims it has. However, the

Manual also instructs DOJ investigators to test conclusions by considering all possible rebuttalarguments by the recipient and the complainant.s Obviously, the DOJ has made it impossible forthe recipient to present the other side of the complaint, or to otherwise test its conclusions, in thisinstance.We sincerely hope that the DOJ's recent public stance regarding its refusal todisclose information relevant to this investigation, which starkly contrasts its private, yetdeficient pledge to provide at least some information, is not the foreshadowing of a preordained,DOJ decision to file suit in the face of the MCSO's mere request for information. Please know,however, tht we stnd redy to litigate th matter should the DOJ refuse to provide theinformation we seek.V/ithout providing such information, the DOJ expects us to proceed in a vacuumand institute requested changes blindly, without considering the facts upon which the DOJ bases

3 Investigation Procedures Manual for the Investigation and Resolution of Complaints Alleging Violations of TitleVI and Other Non-Discrimination Statutes (1998), p. 99.o Id. at 1oo,5 Id. atl4g-47.6 See Id. at l5l.7 Id. at163.t Id. atl4s.2729',t38.1


5/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 5its findings. If the DOJ chooses the litigation route, that route will lead the parties throughdiscovery and result in the DOJ's compelled provision of the information we now request toevaluate its findings and to determine what changes at the MCSO may be necessary, if any. Itappears through Ms. Hinojosa's statements that the DOJ agrees that litigation will ultimatelyresult in the DOJ's provision of the information we seek. And with the application of evidentiaryrules, orders precluding the DOJ from presenting what it claims to be evidence at this time areprobable.

The DOJ asked for transparency from the MCSO and we provided it bycomplying with the DOJ's requests for facility access, voluminous documentation, andinformation and interviews, including two interviews of Sheriff Arpaio. V/e now requestreciprocal transparency and reasonable cooperation from the DOJ.Appended to this letter is a Request for Facts and Information that mirrors thestatements and conclusions set forth in your December 15,2011 letter and demonstrates ourthirst for the facts which you claim to suiport these statements and conclusions.e Proceeding inthe present factual void is impossible and, frankly, unacceptable and unjust, especially in light ofthe DOJ's stated goal of helping the MCSO to achieve full compliance. As you well know,however, litigation will remedy this factual void, but at great, unnecessary and avoidableexpense. The choice is yours, but litigation is clearly the foolish choice in this instance.Please respond by the close of business on January 18,2011 as to whether theDOJ will agree to provide us with the facts and information we seek and to which Sheriff Arpaio

and the MCSO are entitled. As you will see from the attached Request for Documents andInformation, we believe that the DOJ should be able to provide us with all the facts, informationand documentation which purportedly support its findings by March 19,2012.We look forward to hearing from you and to resolving this dispute and thisinvestigation amicably and without protracted, expensive, and truly unnecessary litigation.

JJP/jancc: Avner Shapirot Please see the Request for Facts and Information attached hereto as Exhibit 2'2'.729738.1

oseph J. PopolizioFor the Firm


6/38

T,XHIBIT 1


7/38

Brief Summary of the MCSO's Cooperation with the DOJ's InvestieationShortly after the commencement of Jones, Skelton &, Hochuli's ("JSH")

involvement in this investigation and the associated, pending lawsuit, JSH attorneys V/illiam R.Jones, John T. Masterson and Joseph J. Popolizio met with DOJ attorneys Roy Austin, MattColangelo, Amin Aminfar, and Kavitha Sreeharsha of the DOJ on November 2,2010. ChiefJerry Sheridan and Chief Jack Maclntyre participated in this meeting also.At that meeting, the parties reached an agreement that all parties would cooperateto resolve the previous disputes and move this matter forward to a cooperative, successfulconclusion. At the conclusion of that meeting, MCSO Chiefs Jerry Sheridan and Jack Maclntyreoffered immediate access to all of the Maricopa County Jail facilities to the present DOJpersonnel that very day. The DOJ declined that invitation. However, within days of thatmeeting, the MCSO provided the DOJ with MCSO policies that the DOJ had requested.The mutual cooperation that the parties enjoyed from that point on culminated inthe dismissal of the lawsuit (United States v. Maricopa County, et al., CV10-1878-PHX-GMS).The Agreement which set forth the mechanism of dismissal of that action resulted from days ofnegotiations, including negotiations on Memorial Day. The result of those negotiations was nota settlement as portrayed in the media, but a stipulated dismissal of the action by United StatesDistrict Judge Murray Snow on August I,2011. That dismissal was a clear reflection of the vastcooperation that the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio provided the DOJ in this investigation.In addition, pursuant to the DOJ's request, we affanged a total of 230 interviews,including 145 inmates interviews, 85 MCSO staff interviews, as well as interviews of SheriffArpaio and high ranking command staff. The DOJ freely chose each inmate or MCSOinterviewee.Moreover, the MCSO has also provided the DOJ with an inordinate amount ofdocumentation and information pursuant to the DOJ's requests. Again, this reflects the completecooperation of the MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio. To date, the MCSO has provided the DOJ 86,398pages of documentation, not including the 931 gigabytes of records and documents provided tothe DOJ on a terabyte hard drive this srrnmer. Furthermore, on July 28,2011, the MCSOprovided the DOJ with a 111 page comprehensive response to the DOJ's First Request forDocuments and Information. Shortly thereafter, the MCSO made available approximately 165boxes of documents for the DOJ to review in response to their Request. MCSO attomeys havealso organized and provided a database of that documentation to streamline the DOJ's review.Thereafter, in correspondence and during telephone conferences, we repeatedlymentioned the availability of this documentation for the DOJ's review. DOJ attorneys spentmerely a couple of hours conducting a cursory review of this documentation; in the weeksafterword, the DOJ informed MCSO counsel that budgetary constraints would delay a moreextensive review of these available documents. Nevertheless, the organization and labeling ofthat documentation enabled the DOJ to select those documents in which it was interested.

27324t4.t


8/38

What's more, only shortly before Assistant Attorney General Perez's pressconference on December 15, 2011 did the DOJ identiff which documents within those boxes itwould like to see. At this time, MCSO counsel is in the process of scanning and bates stampingthose documents to provide to the DOJ. It is our estimation that we will soon be providing to theDOJ slightly over 6,000 documents that have been available for the DOJ to review for manymonths.

Again, this is merely an overview of MCSO's cooperation with this investigation- cooperation that the DOJ has enjoyed for well over a year.

2732414.1


9/38

EXHIBIT 2


10/38

Wrrum R. Jorurs. Jn.TETEPHoNE: (6021 263.1714Fnx: (602) 200-7801E-Mrr: [email protected] T. MnsrrnsoruTETEPHoNE: (602) 263-7330tnx: (602) 200-7846E.MAII.: JMASTEBSON@JSHFIRM,COMJoSEPH J. Popouzro'TETEPH0NE: (602) 263.1 i41tx: (602) 200-7876E-MAil.: [email protected]*AIsO ADMITTEO IN CONNECTICUT

ANo WAsHrNcToN, D.C.

QHtr,N&L-/I T HOCHULI, P.L.C. 2901 lllosrH CENT8AI AvEttluESUITE 800PHoENrx, ARrzoNA 85012PH0NE: (602) 263.1700tnx: (602) 651-75S9WWW.JSHFIRM.Cf}M

January 4,2012Thomas E.PerczAssistant Attorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionSpecial Litigation Section950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NVy'V/ashington, DC 20530-000 1

Re: U.S. v. MCSO, et al.CV1O.I0878-PHX-GMSDear Mr. Perez'.

Requests for Facts and InformationV/e, Sheriff Arpaio, and the MCSO truly desire to address each of the DOJ'sfindings contained in your December 15, 2011 letter. However, as indicated in the letteraccompanying this Request for Facts and Information, we cannot proceed in the factual vacuumyou have presented to us. It is imperative that the DOJ provide the specific facts and informationupon which it bases its findings. Otherwise, it is impossible to address any of the issues andconcerns outlined in your December 15,2011 letter'To engage in an assessment and evaluation of the MCSO's function, to considerand address each of the DOJ's expressed concerns, and to attain what the DOJ and we discussedmany times since our very first meeting on November 2,2010 - ensuring that the MCSOoperates in adherence to all applicable constitutional standards - \ile request the followingspecific facts and information.At this stage in the DOJ's enforcement action and given the complete cooperationof the MCSO that you have enjoyed, we believe that the DOJ is obligated to make every effort tosecure the voluntary compliance of the MCSO which, at this juncture, depends on the DOJ'smere provision of the factual detail behind its findings.

2732833.t


11/38

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2We assume that the DOJ has the following documents and information at itsdisposal given the fact that they purportedly form the bases of the findings set forth in yourDecember 15,2011 letter. Thus, we assume that the DOJ could provide the following requesteddocuments and information by March 19,2012. Please let us know whether production of therequested documents by that date will create any unanticipated diffrculties. Otherwise, we lookforward to receiving the requested documents and information on or before March 19,2012.For your ease of reference, our request for information will track the headings andcontent of your December 15,2011 letter very closely.Discriminatorv PolicinsV/ith regard to the DOJ's findings relating to MCSO's alleged discriminatorypolice practices, we request the following:1. Please provide a complete copy of the recent statistical study that the DOJ

commissioned regarding MCSO ftafftc stop activities on Maricopa County roadways whichpurportedly concludes that Latino drivers are four to nine times more likely to be stopped thansimilarly situated non-Latino drivers.2. Please identify each Human Smuggling Unit (HSU) stop over a three (3)year period upon which the DOJ's expeqt law enforcement consultants relied upon in reachingtheir conclusion that one-fifth (1/5) of these reports involve Latino drivers and containedinformation indicating that MCSO HSU Off,rcers conducted these stops in violation of the FourthAmendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures. Please also provide the identity, files,reports, notes, writings, relevant to the conclusions of each law enforcement expert consultantwho concluded that these HSU stops were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Thecurriculum vitae of each expert is also requested.3. Please describe, with particularity, each "individual account" regardingMCSO deputies stopping Latinos on the basis of their appearance. In doing so, please identifythe individual by providing a name and contact information so that we may conduct our owninterviews. 'We would also request any statements provided to the DOJ, either recorded or

2732833.1


12/38

JONES, SKELTON 6{" HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 3written, which memorialized these individual accounts and any factual information regardingthese alleged discriminatory stops including, but not limited to, the date and time of each stop.4. Please identify and describe in detail the specific instances in which theDOJ has alleged that immigration-related crime suppression activities were initiated in thecommunity after the MCSO received complaints that described no criminal activity, butallegedly merely referred to individuals with "dark skin" congregating in one area or speakingSpanish at local businesses. In doing so, please identify each alleged instance, the individual(s)involved, the MCSO offrcers involved, and the date and source of each complaint, and the dateand location of each alleged instance.5. Please also explain in detail any alleged causal connection between theMCSO's crime suppression activity and a particular complaint(s), if any.

Discriminatorv Jail Practices6. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officersdiscriminatorily punished Latino LEP inmates who failed to understand commands given inEnglish by, for example, locking down their pods or imposing disciplinary segregations.7. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers refusedto accept forms completed by Latino LEP inmates in Spanish, as well as each and every instancethat the DOJ believes that Spanish language requests were accepted, but Latino LEP inmatesfaced delays in services for not submitting requests and grievance forms in English.

2'132833.1


13/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L I-IOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 48. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO pressures Latino LEPinmates to sign voluntary return forms that implicate constitutional and statutory rights withoutlanguage assistance.9. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwriften, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies-and-claims to allegedly demonsfrate-thatlatino LEP inru-ates are limited-intheir ability to access important services, such as services enabling early release, and are deniedaccess to basic information about programs and services.10. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recordedor written), or writings of any kind which the DOJ contends that will allegedly demonstrate thatmost announcements in the jails are made in English only.

Findinss Pertainine to Both Police and Jail PracticesI 1. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO retaliates againstindividuals who criticize police practices, including practices relating to its allegeddiscriminatory treatment of Latinos, by allegedly subjecting its critics to retaliatory detentionsand arrests without cause, unfounded civil lawsuits, and other baseless complaints. In doing so,please provide the identity and contact information of each individual to whom the DOJ alludesand claims experienced retaliation, as well as the facts and circumstances underlying eachalleged instance of retaliation.

2732833.r


14/38

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 512. In addition, please provide each instance of alleged retaliatory detention,arrest without cause, unfounded civil lawsuit, and o'other baseless complaints" to which the DOJ

refers including, but not limited to, the identification of each individual, the date, circumstances,and location of each detention and arrest, each civil lawsuit identified by case name and docketnumber, and the identity of each individual who has claimed to be the subject of oobaselesscomplaints," including the date, facts, and circumstances of each alleged baseless complaint.13. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly fosters andperpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basicpolicing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing andcorrectional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, andaccountability systems.

14. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate the alleged, pervasive nature ofMCSO's discriminatory treatment of Latinos which allegedly reflects a general culture of biaswithin the MCSO. In doing so, please define in detail the "pervasive nature of MCSO'sdiscriminatory treatment of Latinos," as well as the alleged "general culture of bias within theMCSO." f,esal Findinss Under Section 14141& Title VI and its

15, Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly discriminates---:,--L r ^+:^^^ L-. ^.^-^-:-- j- .^^.1:^^ -*^^+i^^^ +L-+ ',i^l^+o +1"o E^'rol Drnfanfnn lorrce nf thelBArIrSt LlLlllui UJi lliXllr lrr PUU\/S Pr4vrrv lll4l Yrvr4rw ruw LYqqr rvvvlrvr

2732833.1


15/38

JONES, SKELTON l. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 6Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section l4I4I, Title VI and theDepartment' s Title VI implementing regulations.16. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly discriminatesagainst its Latino LEP inmates on the basis of their national origin in violation of Title VI andthe Department's Title VI implementing regulations'17. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly engages in apattern or practice of unlawful seizures, including unjustified stops, detentions, and arrests ofLatinos in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section14t4t

18. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly engages in apattern or practice of retaliatory actions against individuals who complain about MCSO'sconduct or criticize MCSO's operations and policies, especially its immigration-related policies,in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section l4l4l.

INVESTIGATIVE BACKGROUND. Please identify, in detail, any and all publicly available information thatthe DOJ considered and upon which it relied in June 2008 to open a preliminary inquiry intoallegations that the MCSO was allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful conduct.

2732833.1


16/38

JONES, SKELTON 6l" HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012PageTIf this public information consisted of media reports, please identify each media report by date,author and/or commentator as well as the media outlet that released such report(s).20. Please provide each and every document that the DOJ gathered andreviewed from various sources extemal to the MCSO referenced on page 5 of the December 15,201 I letter. In doing so, please identiff each of the external, various sources to whom the DOJalludes. 21. Please identify each and every one the numerous Maricopa Countyresidents whom the DOJ interviewed and allegedly provided accounts of being victims ofMCSO's allegedly discriminatory police practices. In addition to identifying each interviewee,please identify the interviewer, as well as any of the summaries, recordings, and any writtenstatement or affidavit obtained as a result of or which necessitated each interview.22. Please provide the analyses, reports, summaries, notes and correspondencefrom each and every expert including, but not limited to, the four current and former policeexecutives with extensive knowledge of policing standards and practices, a correctional expertwith substantial experience as a coffectional administrator and a jail and prison auditor, and astatistician with extensive experience reviewing police practices, alluded to but not identifiedpage 5 of the December 15,2011 letter. In doing so, please provide the curriculum vitae of eachexpert upon whose analyses the DOJ has relied in reaching its findings.

FACTUAL FINDINGS23. Please identiff each and every deputy, detention officer, supervisory staff,and command staff of the MCSO that allegedly engaged in a widespread pattern or practice oflaw enforcement and jail activities that discriminated against Latinos. In doing so, pleaseprovide specific facts, details, and circumstances of each allegation of discrimination that the

2732833.r


17/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 8DOJ contends constitutes a widespread pattem or practice of law enforcement and jail activitiesthat discriminate against Latinos.24. Please define the "culture of bias" to which the DOJ refers and that theDOJ contends to result in the alleged discriminatory treatment of Latinos. In defining anddescribing the alleged "culture of bias," please provide each and every fact, document, report,statement (recorded, handwrifien or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and allevidence which allegedly demonstrates that this culture of bias exists.25. Please define the "institutional deficiencies" to which the DOJ refers andthat the DOJ contends to result in the alleged discriminatory treatment of Latinos' In definingand describing the "institutional deficiencies," please provide each and every fact, document,report, statement (recorded, handwritten or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and anyand all evidence which allegedly demonstrates that institutional deficiency exists.

A. Discriminatory Police Practices26. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that fhe MCSO has implementedpractices that treat Latinos as if they are all undocumented, regardless of whether a legitimatefactual basis exists to suspect that person is undocumented.

27. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly emphasizesits immigration enforcement efforts without following basic policing protocols and does notimplement any meaningful safeguards against discriminatory police practices' In doing so,--7---- :t^-^+:c-. ^^^L L^^:^ -^1:^:-^ --^+^^^1. +]^ot t1".a lffrCl- ollpcerllr feils fn fnllnrv Tnprgils lurrtrry all uiaJlv yurrvru PluLuvur Lrr4r rrrv vrvuv2732833.1


18/38

JONES, SKELTON 6L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 9addition, please identiff each and every safeguard against discriminatory police practices that theMCSO allegedly has failed to implement.28. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO has allegedly engagedin a series of practices that have adversely and disproportionately impacted Latinos.29. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO deputies allegedly targetLatino drivers. In doing so, please provide the statistical analysis of MCSO's traffic stops madesince the initiation of MCSO's immigration enforcement program that allegedly shows thatMCSO's enforcement practices have a discriminatory impact on Latino drivers' In doing so,please provide the curriculum vitae of this expert, as well as a list of cases in which he hasprovided expert testimony, as well as the professional literature that he has reviewed to whichyou refer on page 6 of the December 15,2011 letter.30. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO's HSU allegedlyengages in unlawful conduct in its attempt to enforce immigration related laws. In doing so,please identify with specif,rcity each and every instance of allegedly unlawful conduct to whichyou refer. 31. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that HSU deputies allegedly stop,detain and/or arrest Latino drivers without adequate cause. In doing so, please identify each and2732833.1


19/38

JONES, SKELTON {- HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 10every stop, detention and/or arrest of Latino drivers that allegedly occurred without adequatecause on which the DOJ relies to support this contention.32. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstntethat roughly 20%o of the reports thatthe DOJ contends to contain information indicating that the HSU stops occurred withoutreasonable suspicion and/or probable cause.33. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that HSU and/or MCSO allegedlyconducts pretextual stops motivated by racial bias and/or that the MCSO/HSU stops are theresult of a policy targeting a protected group. In doing so, please identify the specificMCSO/HSU policy that allegedly directs and/or encourages the targeting of a protected group towhich you refer on page 7 of your December 15,2011 letter.34. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly support your contention that the typicalcharacteristic of HSU's enforcement efforts is the targeting and harassment of Latino driversrather than the effective enforcement of immigration law and an element of MCSO's allegedoverall pattern of discrimination against Latinos in Maricopa County.35. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO immigration enforcementpractices are allegedly unconstitutional and are allegedly harming innocent Latinos. In doing so,please provide each and every witness account that the DOJ claims to support the statistical data

2732833.1


20/38

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 11that the DOJ has yet to provide that supports the DOJ's contention that the MCSO's immigrationenforcement is unconstitutional and harms innocent Latinos. In addition, please identifu eachand every individual by name and contact information that provided a "witness account" and/orinterview which supposedly supports this contention.36. Please provide the identity of the individual 'oA.A." to whom you refer onpageT of your December 15,2011 letter.

37 . Please provide the identity of the individual "8.8." to whom you refer onpage 7 of your December 15, 2011 letter. Please indicate whether the reference to "4.4.'shome" is a typo in the paragraph presenting the allegations of B.B. Please see page 7, secondbullet point, of the December 15,2011 letter.38. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhieh the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSOos crime suppressionoperations adversely impact Latinos.39. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat the MCSO's crime suppressionoperations use "vast numbers of personnel for many hours." In doing so, please identify thesource and/or basis of that conclusion.

40. Please identify the MCSO lieutenant whom the DOJ contends to haveallegedly referred to crime suppression operations as o'round-ups of illegal aliens."41. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly encourages itsdeputies to ma.ke high volume pretextual traffic stops in targeted locations.2732833.1


21/38

JONES, SKELTON l HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 1242. \Please provide the identity of each and every Latino whom the DOJclaims to have interviewed who were arrested or detained without cause as a consequence of a

crime suppression operation and whom the DOJ claims to have been legally present in theUnited States. In doing so, please provide the contact information for each interviewee, as wellas any document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten) regarding eachinterview. 43. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO Criminal EmploymentSquad (CES) deputies allegedly routinely raid businesses in a manner that harms innocent Latinoworkers. In doing so, please identiff each and every "raid" to which you allude, including thedate and location of each "taid," the business affected and each Latino worker who claims tohave been harmed.

44. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO allegedly makes use ofunverified tips and/or constituent complaints about the presence of Latinos that are infected withbias against Latino pesons, but allegedly contain no credible information concerning criminalactivity or immigration violations, in selecting sites for immigration enforcement operations. Indoing so, please identify each and every alleged practice of making use of unverified tips and/orconstituent complaints has had a disparate and adverse impact on Maricopa County's Latinoresidents. 45. Please provide a copy of the letter to which you refer in bullet point 1 onpage 8 of the December 15,2011 letter described as "a letter in August 2008 expressing dismay

2732833.1


22/38

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 13that the employees of a Sun City McDonald's did not speak English and suggesting that SheriffArpaio should 'check this out' and 'check out Sun City."'46. V/ith regard to the immediately above mentioned "letter in August2008...," please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO conductecl animmigration operation in Sun City two weeks after this letter, in response to this letter. Pleaseindicate the exact date upon which this "immigration operation in Sun City" occurred andwhether this alleged operation specifically targeted the referenced Sun City McDonald's. Indoing so, please make sure that you provide a copy of the letter which purports to contain thenote of Sheriff Arpaio.47. Please provide a copy of the "letter in May 2008 complaining that policehad not stopped day laborers in Mesa 'in order to determine whether these day laborers are hereunder legitimate circumstances"' although the writer of the letter "believe[d] that they were inthe country illegally." In doing so, please make sure that you provide a copy of the letter whichpurports to contain the handwritten marks/writing of Sheriff Arpaio'48. Please provide the second May 2008 to which you refer on page 8 whichpurportedly states 'lthat Mesa needed 'a sweep...terribly' and accusing specific Latino membersof MCSO and the Mesa Police Department of negligence in pursuing oillegals."' In doing so,please provide a copy of that letter that purports to contain the direction of Sheriff Arpaio towrite a thank you letter written, as well as his purported handwritten note. In addition, pleaseprovide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten),affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claimsto allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO allegedly conducted crime suppression operations in

2732833.1


23/38

JONES, SKELTON 6,{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 14Mesa on June 26-27,2008, and on July 14,2008 based on the May 2008 letters referenced onpage 8 of your December 15,2011 letter.49. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that there is a proximate causalconnection the MCSO's alleged prioritization of immigration enforcement that the DOJ claims tohave compromised the MCSO's ability to secure the safety and security of Maricopa Countyresidents and the apparent rise to violent crime rtes in Maricopa County as compared tosimilarly situated jurisdictions. In doing so, please identify each and every similarly situatedjurisdiction to which you refer and their violent crime rates from 2008 to the present.

B. Discriminatory Language Access Jail Practices50. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwitten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO, through its correctionalofficers, supervisory staff, and command staff implements language access practices thathave adiscriminatory impact on Latinos51. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence.uponwhich the DOJ relieq and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's language accesspractices fall short of what is required and disproportionately harm Latinos in a number of ways.In doing so, please identiff each and every requirement to which you allude.52. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponw.hich the DOJ relies and olaims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO officers have refused to2732833.1


24/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 1accept forms completed by LEP inmates in Spanish, including tank orders and grievance forms.In doing so, please identifi' each and every officer who allegedly had refused to accept tankandior grievance forms, the source of this allegation, the facility in which each refusal occurred,as well as the date upon which refusal occurred.53. Please identify the detention officer by name, rank, and facility in whichthe detention officer allegedly stated "this is America. You have to fill [your tank order] out inEnglish." In addition, please identify each and every detention officer who allegedly confirmedthat comments like these were made by fellow officers, as well as the name of these "fellowofficers." 54. Please identify each and every one of the four MCSO detention officers byname, rank, and facility if known who stated that they do not accept inmate requests written inSpanish, as well as the single detention officer who allegedly stated that she returns tank orderssubmitted to her in Spanish and instructs the inmate to obtain an English translation. In doing so,please indicate the facts and circumstances under which each alleged refusal to accept inmaterequests occurred.55. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO personnel allegedly makeLatino LEP inmates sign important forms written in English without the aid of appropriatelanguage assistance. In doing so, please identify each and every inmate whom you claim wastold to sign important forms in English without the aid of appropriate language assistance.56. Please identify each and every witness who re.ported that MCSO officialsallegedly pressure Latino LEP inmates to sign English language voluntary return forms byyelling at them, routinely failing to advise them of their rights, and confining them inuncomfi-rrta-blv eolel- eells for extended periods of time. ln addition to identif-ving each witness,'--J -2732833.1


25/38

JONES, SKELTON L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 16please provide any document, report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten),affidavits, writings of any kind and any and all evidence which allegedly demonstrates that thesealleged instances in which MCSO offrcials pressrue Latino LEP inmates to sign Englishlanguage voluntary return forms by yelling at them, routinely failing to advise them of theirrights, and confining them in uncomfortably cold cells for extended periods of time.57. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention offrcersallegedly punish, directly and indirectly, Latino LEP inmates for their inability to fullyunderstand or fluently speak English. In doing so, please describe each and every form of directand indirect punishment allegedly levied.58. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the inability of one Latino LEPinmate to understand a command given in English can result in the confinement (lock down) ofan entire house or pod and that these "lock downs" are sometimes in effect for as long as 72hours. In doing so, please identify and describe each and every instance, with specificity, inwhich lock downs occurred due to inability of an LEP inmate to understand a command given inEnglish.

59. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that a Latino LEP inmate's inability tounderstand a detention officer's English language instructions has resulted in the detentionofficer sending the inmate into disciplinary segregation, to which your letter refers to as the'hnle " In dnino so nlease identifv each anrl everv LEP inmate who has been sent to'---"--J - - J2732833.1


26/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 17disciplinary segregation based on an inability to understand an English language instruction of adetention officer and describe the circumstances of each incident.60. Please identify each and every Latino LEP inmate who reported that theyhad never received a copy of the inmate rules and regulations, or did not receive a copy of therules and regulations in a language they can comprehend.6L Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO allegedly discriminatesagainst Latino LEP inmates by failing to provide them with equal access to a range of services,opportunities, and benefits available to other inmates. In doing so, please indicate each andevery service, opportunity, and benefit of which LEP inmates have claimed to be deprived due toalleged discrimination. In addition, please identiff each and every Latino LEP inmate whoclaims to have been deprived of services, opportunities and benefits due to discrimination, aswell as the facts and circumstances of each alleged deprivation of services, opportunities, andbenefits. 62. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO detention offtcers havedenied requests for new clothes or sheets when items are soiled because the inmates made therequest in Spanish. In doing so, please identify each inmate who made such requests, the relativedate upon which each request was made, the facility in which each request was made, thedetention officers who allegedly denied the request, and the circumstances of each allegeddenial. 63. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,hanrhriffarr nr frnerriffen\ affidawifs rrifinos of anv kind- and anv and all evidence uonL'vwv.,/) __ ___J2732833.1


27/38

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 18which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that one Latino LEP inmate attemptedto use a fellow inmate as an interpreter to explain that her sheets were soiled, that the detentionofficer refused the request, insisting that the inmate had to make the request herself in English'In doing so, please identiff the Latino LEP inmate, the facility in which this alleged incidentoccurred, the detention offrcer who allegedly refused the request and insisted that the inmate hadto make the request in English herself, and the circumstances of each alleged request.64. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates are frequentlydenied access to basic information about programs and services as most announcements areallegedly made in English only, including announcements about recreation and the collection ofgrievances. In doing so, please provide specific examples, including the identities of each LatinoLEP inmate who were denied access to basic information about programs and services,recreation andlor the collection of grievances due to announcements being made in English only,as well as the facility in which each denial occurred, and the circumstances of each allegeddenial. 65. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates have beendenied the opportunity to serve in trustee-type positions. In doing so, please identify each LatinoLEP inmate who claims to have been denied the opportunity to serve in a trustee-type position,as well as the specific facility in which this denial occurred, and the circumstances of eachalleged denial. 66. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,hqndrxrifren or fwnerxritfen\ affidavifs- writinss of anv kind. and anv and all evidence uponr-'|r'^---"/,2732833.t


28/38

JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page 19which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Latino LEP inmates are deniedaccess to important activities, including access to a program that enables inmates to obtain earlyrelease by performing community service. In doing so, please identiff each and every Latinoinmate who was denied such access to important activities, including access to a program thatenables inmates to obtain early release by performing community service, as well as each"important activity" that Latino LEP inmates arelwere denied, and the circumstances for eachalleged denial.

C. Direct Evidence of Discriminatory Bias67, Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that a pervasive culture ofdiscriminatory bias against Latinos and MCSO that reaches the highest levels of the agencyexists. 68. Please provide each and every e-mail to which you refer on page 10 ofyour December 15, 2011 letter that demean and express derision for Latinos to fellow commandstaff members, deputies, posse volunteers, often using County e-mails. In addition, pleaseprovide any other instance in which non-County e-mail accounts were used for such e-mails.Please do not publicize any e-mail account in a response to this request. However, pleaseindicate if you have obtained e-mails from private e-mail aocounts and the circumstances underwhich you obtained them.69. Please provide a copy of the e-mail referred to on page 11 of yourDecember 15, 2011 letter that allegedly mocks individuals of Mexican national origin byincluding as an attachment a faux driver license issued to an individual caricatured to beMexic.an a:rd designafeel as originating from "Mexifornia," with a driver class of "illegal alien."2732833.1


29/38

JONES, SKELTON 6,1 HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2070. Please provide the e-mail referred to on page 11 of your December 15,2011 letter that supposedly contains two pictures purporting to illustrate the difference between

"Indian yoga" and "Mexican yoga," contrasting a picture of a man in a yoga pose and anapparently inebriated man prone on the ground.71. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that in MCSO jails, detention officersdirect racial slurs at Latino inmates. In doing so, please identif the detention officer and theLatino inmate involved in each alleged racial slur incident.72. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwrigen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any. and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that detention officers also insult orignore Latino inmates when they attempt to communicate in Spanish. In doing so, pleaseidentiff each detention officer and inmate involved in each incident to which you allude, thefacility in which each alleged incident happened, and the date of each alleged incident.73. Please identi$ the detention officer who allegedly confirmed that offtcerson her shift frequently tell Latino LEP inmates to speak in English.74. Please identify each and every detention officer who observed hostilitytowards Latino LEP inmates, such as swearing at Latino inmates, swearing at Latino inmates inSpanish, and using slurs when referring to Latino persons. In doing so, please identify thefacility in which each alleged incident occurred, as well as each Latino LEP inmate and detentionofficer involved.75. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon..,hich the DOJ relies and c.laims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO detention officers call2732833.t


30/38

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2lLatinos "wetbacks," "Mexican bitches," "fucking Mexicans," and "stupid Mexicans" wheneither talking among themselves or addressing Latino inmates. In doing so, please identify thefacility in which these alleged instances occured, as well as the Latino LEP inmate anddetention officer involved.76. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwriuen, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio's own actions haveallegedly help nurture MCSO's cultural bias.77. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio allegedlyfrequently distributes racially charged constituent letters, annotating letters with handwrittennotes that appear to endorse the content of the letter, circulating the letters to others on thecommand staff, and/or saving the letters in his personal file. In doing so, please provide eachand every racially charged constituent letter to which you refer on page 11 of your December 15,2011 letter. 78. Please provide the letter referenced on page 11 of your December 15,2011 correspondence described as a letter asking Sheriff Arpaio to do a "round up" at 29th Streetand Greenway in Phoenix and supposedly justified the requested police action by asserting that"if you have dark skin, then you have dark skin. Unfortunately, that is the look of Mexicanillegals who are here illegally." In addition, please provide each and every fact, document,report, statement (recorded, handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, andany and all evidence upon which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that SheriffArpaio and/or any other MCSO command staff used this letter as a basis to initiate law

2732833.1


31/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page22enforcement operations, specifically identifying the law enforcement operation stemming fromthis letter, if applicable.

D. Departures From Policing and Correctional Standards andProcedures79. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO has allegedly adoptedand maintained deficient policies and procedures that depart from policing and correctionalstandards and lead to violations of constitutional and federal rights. In doing so, please identifyeach and every deficient poticy and procedure that the MCSO has adopted and maintained thatdeparts from policing and correctional standards and lead to violations of constitutional andfederal rights. In addition, please identify each and every policing and correctional standards towhich you refer. Furthermore, please identify each and every violation of constitutional andfederal rights that you puport to have occurred due to the adoption and maintenance of deficientpolicies and procedures that depart from policing and correctional standards, including theidentification of each violation of constitutional and federal rights, the individual whoseconstitutional and federal rights were violated, and the offending MCSO officer(s) whocommitted the violation.80. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), afflrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's oversight andaccountability, training and non-biased policing, and policies for deputy conduct substantiated adeparture from generally acceptedpolicing practices. In doing so, please indicate each and every

2732833.1


32/38

JONES, SKELTON 6r HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2072Page23policy for deputy conduct that substantially departs from the generally accepted policingstandards, as well as each generally accepted policing standard to which you refer.81. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's practices are often mostegregiously deficient where they directly relate to MCSO's immigration enforcement program.82. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO's supervisors have made avariety of statements undervaluing the usefulness of statistics and data collection for effectivelaw enforcement. In doing so, please identify each standard policing practice throughout thecountry to which you refer that contrasts the alleged positions of MCSO supervisors.83. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwifien, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO cannot directly trackthe ethnicity of a stopped driver in a traffic stop. In doing so, please provide any and all DOJpolicies, correspondence, rules, regulations and any case law which requires law enforcement totrack the ethnicity of any drivers stopped in routine traffrc stops.84. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO is unable to properlymonitor its deputy's traffic work or identiff officers engaged in racial profiling because MCSOdoes not require deputies on patrol to keep a log of their activities, but instead only requires themto enter a highly limited amount of data into the Computer Aided Dispatch system and tonrndrrce recnrds nnlv for their c.ifafions and arrests-- "'J '-'2732833.l


33/38

JONES, SKELTON 6'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2485. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that in the Maricopa County Jails,MCSO has no reliable practice of documenting which inmates are LEP, leaving detentionofficers to guess at the language needs of the inmates.86. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has allegedly failed to putin place meaningful oversight and accountability structures.87. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affrdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrale thaf when inmates file grievancesagainst detention officers, it is common practice for the detention officer named in the compliantto resolve the grievance by pressuring the inmate to sign a release, resulting in no further reviewof the complained-of activity. In doing so, please identify each and every inmate and offtcerinvolved in each and every instance that the DOJ has revealed the use of such a practice.88. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), aff,rdavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that the MCSO operates its HSU andCES units despite egregious deviations from policing norms. In doing so, please identify anddescribe each policing nonn from which the MCSO's HSU and CES units egregiously deviate.89. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has provided deputies and+haIJQTTanrlf-FSrrnifcuifhlittlcinfhcrrawnfnnlicwsnidance frainins-oroversisht.rv ruv --_-_____e, __ _ ____e ..2732833.1


34/38

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2590. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO has failed to meet its LEPobligations under Title VI, the regulations implemented in Title VI or the standards that MCSOset for itself in its position statement. In doing so, please identify each and every incident inwhich you claim detention officers refused to accept written requests by inmates in Spanish, thecircumstances under which each refusal allegedly occurred, and the officer(s) who allegedlyfailed to use or rely upon a foreign language skills roster, and each and every type of instanceand specific instance in which officers rely on inmates to provide other inmates with languageassistance. gL Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that detention officers failed to use anavailable telephonic interpretation service or to request bilingual colleagues to assist them incommunicating with LEP inmates. In doing so, please provide the circumstances upon whicheach alleged failure to use an available telephonic interpretation service or to request bilingualcolleagues to assist in communicating with LEP inmates occurred, as well as the detentionoffrcers allegedly involved in these instances, the facility in which each alleged failure occurredand the date of each alleged failure.

E. Retaliatory Actions92. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,

handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrute that MCSO command staff andJ^---:^^ L^-.^ ^ll^-^ 1-, ^--^-^l :- ^ ^^#a ^- ^-^^+i^^^f --+-l;^+:-- o-aincf i-rli.rilralc ,trhn qreuPutrs lrav aarrurJ lli1'Ll III l PcrLlrrl vr PrrvLrvw vl lvL4ll4Lu 4euor rutYuu4r vvuv uv

2732833.t


35/38

JONES, SKELTON 6l HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page26exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. In doing so, please identify the commandstaff and deputies involved and each instance of retaliation against individuals for exercisingtheir First Amendment right to free speech. Please also identifu each and every individual whoclaims that the MCSO has retaliated against him or her for exercising his or her FirstAmendment right to free speech.93. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that Sheriff Arpaio and othercommand staff have directed MCSO deputies to silence individuals who have publicly spokenout and participated in protected demonstrations against the policies and practices of MCSO,including its immigration policies. In doing so, please identify the command staff who directedMCSO deputies to silence individuals in this manner, as well as the deputies who allegedlysilenced individuals who have publicly.spoken out and participated in protected demonstrationsagainst the MCSO and its policies and practices, including immigration policies.94. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO command staff anddeputies have arrested individuals without cause, filed meritless complaints against politicaladversaries of Sheriff Arpaio and initiated unfounded civil lawsuits and investigations againstindividuals critical of MCSO policies and practices. This request seeks information in additionto the references to Deputy Chief Hendershott contained in your December 15,2011 letter.95. Please identify the individual referred to as "C.C." to whom you refer onpage 13 of your December 15, 2011 correspondence. In addition, please provide the series ofapproving messagps on a social nefworking site that Sheriff Arpaio allegedly posted with regardta'(C I " cnrl his cffcsfc2732833.1


36/38

JONES, SKELTON 6{. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page2796. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratefhatMcsO deputies retaliated againstmembers of the Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability (MCSA) fr being highlycritical of what they call the MCSO's discriminatory treatment of Latinos. In doing so, pleaseindicate what you believe to have precipitated the December 2008 arrests of MCSA members atmeetings of the County Board of Supervisors for criminal trespassing andlor disorderly conductby the MCSO, detailing the detailed factual basis for that belief'97. Please identify each and every MCSO official, besides the former ChiefDeputy David Hendershott, who filed in his or her official capacity, unfounded complaints withthe Arizona State Bar against attomeys alleging ethical violations against individuals who madepublic statements critical of MCSO jail policies, investigatory tactics, and./or police practices, orotherwise.

98. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhichthe DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstratethat MCSO officials, besides formerChief Deputy David Hendershott, acting in his or her official capacity, filed complaints with theArizona Commission on Judicial Conduct against judges who made critical public commentsabout MCSO and Sheriff Arpaio or had rendered decisions detrimental to MCSO's interests.

99. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwien, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate lhat the arrests and harassmentundertaken by MCSO had been authorized at the highest levels of the agency and constituted apattern of retaliatory actions intended to silence MCSO's critics.

2732833.1


37/38

JONES, SKELTON {. HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page28F. Additional Areas of Serious ConcernWe realize that the DOJ had identif,red three additional areas of concern for whichit has yet to issue any formal pattern or practice finding and await the conclusion of the DOJ'sinvestigation regarding these three areas (i.e., alleged use of excessive force against Latinos,alleged reduction of policing services to the Latino community, ffid alleged gender and/ornatind origin bias by failing to adequately investigate sex crimes). However, in the interest ofdisclosure and to attain the common goal of ensuring thal the MCSO operates efficiently,effectively, and constitutionally, we have the following requests with regard to the informationcontained in your December 15,201.1 correspondence addressing these additional areas.100. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence upon

which the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that MCSO deputies, in multipleinstances, have allegedly used excessive force. In doing so, please indicate the alleged victim ofthe excessive force, the officers involved, the circumstances under which the alleged excessiveforce occurred, the involved MCSO deputies, and the date of each alleged occurrence.

101. Please identiff the individual to whom you refer as "E.E.," the exact dateof the incident involving "E.E.," and the deputies involved, if known'I02. Please provide each and every fact, document, report, statement (recorded,handwritten, or typewritten), affidavits, writings of any kind, and any and all evidence uponwhich the DOJ relies and claims to allegedly demonstrate that an absence of trust in theMaricopa County Sheriffls Office allegedly exists and has substantially compromised effectivepolicing by limiting the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes and speak to thepolice about criminal activity. In doing so, please identiff each and every individual with whomyou spoke and the information each individual provided to you to substantiate this contention.103. Please provide the identities of the MCSO deputies that you interviewedwho allegedly admitted that the immigration enforcement program has adversely affected theirability to obtain information and cooperation from the County's Latinos.

2732833.1


38/38

JONES, SKELTON 'L HOCHULI, P.L.C.January 4,2012Page29I04. Please identify the deputy to whom you refer who allegedly informed theDOJ that the MCSO's "aggressive" immigration interdiction efforts create a "wall of distrust"

that divides the Latino community and MCSO.105. Please identify the deputy to whom you refer on page 16 of yourDecember 15,2011 correspondence who stated he was told by his supervisors to expect that hewould encounter hostility from people who believed they were being stopped because of theirethnicity. In addition, identiff the supervisor who allegedly told this deputy that he wouldencounter such hostility.106. Please identify the MCSO deputy to whom you refer on page 16 of yourDecember 15, 2011 correspondence who 'obemoaned" the impact of MCSO's immigration-related operations, stressing that they 'oaffectour ability to work in a community that hates you'"

***Mr. Perez, surely you understand that without the documents and informationrequested immediately above, it will be impossible for Sheriff Arpaio, the MCSO and us toevluate the DOJ's findings in this instance. The DOJ asked for transparency from the MCSOand we provided it by complying with the DOJ's requests. We now simply request reciprocaltransparency and reasonable cooperation from the DOJ.Thank you for your anticipated prompt response. V/e look forward to workingwith you to resolve this matter amicably, short of protracted, expensive and truly avoidablelitigation.

illiam R. JonesJohn T. MastersonJoseph J. PopolizioFor the Firm