Melendres # 672 140403 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 672 - Transcript - Apr 3 2014 Hearing

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 89
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
Phoenix, Arizona
na
April 3, 2014
4
2 o'clock p.
p.m.
.m.
OG
10
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
S
Manuel de Jesus Ortega

Melendres, et al.,
BO
.C
OM
11
EF
12
13
TH
14
REPORTER'S
OF PROCEEDINGS
RT 'S TRANSCRIPT
RTE
TR
TRAN
16
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
OF
15
17
(Status Conference)
18
ND
19
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Court Reporter:
Co
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/3/14 Status Conference
A P P E A R A N C E S
1
2
For the Plaintiffs:
4
5
6
Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

q.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
RTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
ZONA
ON
77 E. Columbus Avenue
Suite 205
Phoenix, Arizona
zona 85012
850
(602) 650-1854
1854
85
BO
8
9
OG
10
Cecillia
Wang, Esq.
ia
a D. Wang
AMERICAN
ICAN
CAN CIVIL
IL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
UNDATION
NDATION
Director
irecto
irector
Immigrants'
Rights Project
Immigrant
Immigrants
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco,
California 94111
Fr
(415)
(415
15 343-0775
11
EF
12
13
TH
14
16
17
18
ND
19
OF
For the Defendants:

s:
15
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
Stanley Young, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive
Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
94
(650) 632-4704
.C
OM
Timothy J. Casey, Esq.

T
James L. Williams, Esq.
SCHMITT, SCHNECK, SMYTH,
CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
1221 E. Osborn Road
Suite 105
Phoenix, Arizona 85014-5540
(602) 277-7000
Thomas P. Liddy
Deputy County Attorney
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Services Division
222 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 506-8541

I N D E X
1
2
Witness:
DAVID TROMBI
Examination by the Court

Examination by Mr. Pochoda
.C
OM
Page
5
31
6
7
E X H I B I T S
No.
Description
(None)
OG
10
11
EF
12
13
TH
14
18
ND
19
17
OF
15
16
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
BO
Admitted

P R O C E E D I N G S
1
2
3
THE COURT:
Thank you.
THE CLERK:
This is civil case 07-2513, Melendres

v.
s v
.
.C
OM
Please be seated.
Arpaio, on for status conference.
14:08:08
Counsel, please announce your appearances.

.
MR. POCHODA:
For plaintiffs, Dan Pochoda

hoda from
fro the
t
ACLU of Arizona, and by telephone Stan Young

Covington
&
ng
g from
fro Covi
o
Burling and Cecillia Wang from the Immigrants

Rights
Project of
grants Righ
ig
the ACLU.
OG
10
BO
THE COURT:
Good afternoon.
oon.
oon
.
12
MR. CASEY:
Good afternoon,
Honor.
ternoon, Your
ternoon
Yo
EF
11
Tim Casey and
James Williams from our law

firm,
and with us is co-counsel Tom
w firm
fir
, a
14
Liddy from the Maricopa

Attorney's Office.
opa
pa County
ounty A
TH
13
THE COURT:
T:
afternoon.
Good
d af
a
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Also, I wanted to -- pursuant to your

Als
order, Chief
Trombi
is also here, and also
e David
Da
Tr
18
Chief Sheridan
Sheridan.
heridan
ND
S
17
19
THE COURT:
20
I also understand that on the line is Chief Raul
Chief Sheridan, good afternoon.

14:08:47
Martinez from the monitor staff.

Martin
Marti
IE
FR
22
14:08:36
OF
15
21
14:08:24
Are you here, Chief Martinez?
2
23
CHIEF MARTINEZ:
24
THE COURT:
25
Now, I do have an outline of five or six things I'd
Yes, Your Honor, I'm here.
All right.
Thank you.
14:09:01

Trombi - Exam by The Court - Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/3/14
like to cover in this meeting, but Chief Trombi, how about we
handle your matter first, and then you can get off the hot seat
and so can I.
.C
OM
Would you come forward, please, and be sworn.
THE CLERK:
and last name.
THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:
(David Trombi was duly sworn as

witness.)
s a witness
witne
David Trombi, T-r-o-m-b-i.

-i.
-i
.
BO
Please raise your right

hand.
ht hand
han
.
THE CLERK:
Please take our

stand.
r witness s
11
THE COURT:
I am going to remind t
those who may be in
OG
10
attendance in the public gallery

there is a rule that
lery th
that t
13
prohibits recording any proceeding

oceeding in the United States
14
District Court, so while

ile you
you're
e welcome, if you can do so
15
quietly, to use your

ou laptops
our
aptops
top if you wish to do so, or even your
16
Twitter, the marshals

are observing, and if anyone is recording
marshal ar
17
this proceeding
they'll
be escorted out, just so that there's a
ee ing
ng they
e
18
clear understan
understanding.
ndersta i
14:09:40
14:09:56
ND
S
OF
TH
EF
12
19
DAVID TROMBI,
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
21
examined and testified as follows:

examin
exami
IE
20
EXAMINATION
22
FR
14:09:20
Can you please state and spell your

our first
st
2
23
BY THE COURT:
24
Q.
Chief Trombi, good afternoon.
25
A.
Good afternoon, sir.
14:10:11

Q.
You are in charge of the patrol
division at the MCSO?
A.
Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q.
And could you explain to me what the patrol division is?
A.
I can.
deputies that work out on patrol in all of the districts

tricts within
with
ith
the sheriff's office performing normal patrol functions,

function , calls
functions
for service, things of that nature.
All of
f the
e
14:10:21
BO
Patrol Bureau is basically just that:
.C
OM
Thank you for being here.
In addition to that -- that duty,

ty,
ty
, I also have our SWAT
division, Special Weapons and Tactics,

cs
s, as well
wel as Enforcement
11
Support, which operates our posse

program, and also
se
e and reserve
reser
res
12
our animal crimes investigations

ions unit.
un .
unit
13
Q.
14
jail operations, which

h I realize
realiz are significant operations for
15
the sheriff, you're

of all the actual law enforcement
re in charge
charg
har
16
street operations
go on under the Sheriff's Office?
ions that
th
g
17
A.
18
major -- major crimes bureau.
19
detectives
tectives
ectives are
ar a separate part and not part of my bureau.
20
Q.
21
made at trial, that you held your present

on stipulations
st
sti
22
position during the time relevant to this lawsuit, is that

po
14:10:41
EF
OG
10
OF
TH
Would it be an overstatement
tatement
temen to say that apart from the
14:11:00
With the
of our special investigations and
h exception
except
exceptio
ND
So the detectives and narcotics
Thank you.
Now, I had the understanding, based
14:11:17
FR
IE
All right.
ri
2
23
correct?
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
I really don't want to talk -- I don't want to have you up
14:11:27

here for too terribly long, I do have a number of questions, I
hope they'll go quickly, but I want to lay some important
groundwork before I get to those.
talking to you about a public meeting that occurred a little

tle
over two weeks ago.
.C
OM
I'm mostly going to be
14:11:44
participated?
A.
Very much so, sir.
Q.
All right.
BO
Are you familiar with that meeting in which

ch you
It was apparently on March

rch 15th
15t at
a a church in
the West Valley?
11
A.
Yes, sir, correct.
12
Q.
And we're both talking about

same meeting?
bout th
the sa
13
A.
I believe so.
14
Q.
All right.
15
remember the name of

church that it occurred at?
o the
he chu
ch
16
A.
17
75th Av and
on the south side of the road.
d Indian
ndian School
Sc
18
Q.
19
that
at
t meeting?
meeting?
20
A.
Yes.
Yes
21
Q.
And
you're aware that I've requested a copy of that
A
An
22
videotape?
vi
TH
Can you tell

me,
el me
e just so that I'm sure, do you
14:11:59
OF
The name of the church,

I'm sorry, but I know it was around
chur
In any case,
there was an MCSO officer there videotaping
cas
ND
IE
FR
14:11:52
EF
OG
10
2
23
A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
And it's that videotape that I'm mostly going to be talking
25
to you about today, just so that we're clear.
14:12:11
14:12:20

A.
I understand.
Q.
All right.
clear.
ago where I had some interaction with Chief Deputy Sheridan,

an,
correct?
A.
Yes, I was.
Q.
And you heard me say in that meeting that I have no

n intent
i
to hold anyone in contempt of my order based

d on their
i public
mischaracterization of my order at a public

meeting?
blic meetin
meeti
Now, I want to make a couple of other things
.C
OM
You were present in the hearing approximately a week
BO
14:12:34
A.
I heard that, yes, sir.
11
Q.
And I want you to know that I don

have any intent of
don't hav
h
12
holding you in contempt for what I view to be your
13
mischaracterizations of my order
orde at that meeting.
14
your attorney, in turning

videotape, said to me -- or
rning
ning over the
t
15
indicated in that ple

pleading
without waiving any privilege,
p
ding
ng that
t
16
quote, Chief Trombi now knows, understands, and appreciates the
17
full evidentiary
basis
found by the Court in issuing its
en iary
ar basi
a
18
injunctive
tive
ve relief.
rel f
19
A.
20
Q.
21
today are going to be designed to explore your -- your
22
understanding of my order up until the time that you

un
14:12:45
And in fact,
14:13:02
OF
TH
EF
OG
10
Do you feel like that's a true statement?
ND
I absolutely
do, sir.
absolut
solut
So I want you to understand that my questions
14:13:15
FR
IE
All right.
ri
2
23
participated in that meeting.
And then I want to find out what
24
your understanding of my order came to be after that meeting,
25
and what you did both before and after the meeting to inform
14:13:33

yourself or to be apprised of -- of that order and where it was
that you got the characterization that you gave in the meeting.
.C
OM
Do you understand --
3
4
A.
I do understand.
Q.
All right.
I don't think they want to interfere in my questioning

ning too
t
much, but they are here to represent your rights

ts and to
t make
m
sure that I don't infringe them and they serve

role.
rve a role
l
not afraid to use that role, I don't think,

ink, but
ink
bu I want to
BO
Now, I think your attorneys have been good

od and
nd
They're
review with you, just before I get started

started,
you understand what
tarte , yo
y
11
it means to be under oath.
12
A.
I absolutely do.
13
Q.
All right.
14
A.
To tell the truth;

; to
t ensure
ensur that what I -- the questions
15
that I -- excuse me,

I give to your questions are
me the
he answers
an
ans
16
the absolute truth

truth,
, and that there are consequences for not
17
doing so.
18
Q.
14:14:05
EF
OG
10
OF
TH
Can you tell

what it means?
ll me wha
14:14:18
Now, can I ask you, between the time
that
participated in that March 15th meeting and today, did
at
t you
y
part
20
you review any documents to inform you about what my order
21
said?
said?
22
A.
Yes, sir, I have.
FR
ND
S
All
l right,
right, thanks.
h
19
2
23
Q.
And what documents would those be?
24
A.
The 140- -- I believe 146 pages, the findings of fact --
25
excuse me, findings of facts and conclusions of law dated, I
IE
14:13:46
14:14:36
14:14:53

10
believe, May of 2013, as well as the October document from
yourself that you also -- also issued.
Q.
so we're clear, we'll call the first document, the findings

gs of
o
fact and conclusions of law, we'll call that the findings

ings
s of
fact and conclusions of law, okay?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And the second document which is in October,

ober,
ober
, it's
' a little
bit of an oversimplification but we'll call that m

my injunction
.C
OM
We'll call it -- just for purposes of my questioning

ng
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
-- or injunctive order?
13
we're talking about?
14
A.
Very well.
15
Q.
Had you ever rea

read my fin
findings of fact and conclusions of
re
fi
16
law prior to the time

you read it in preparation for this
tim that
th
17
hearing?
18
A.
Prior
ior
or to.
to.
19
Q.
20
you read it just to prepare for this hearing?

the time that
t
21
A.
No,
No sir.
N
22
Q.
Do you believe it might have been incumbent upon you, since
14:15:26
TH
EF
we're clear which ones

Just so
s we
14:15:32
OF
All right.
right
ND
IE
FR
14:15:15
BO
order, all right --
OG
10
Okay.
Ashamedly, no, sir.

Had you ever read my injunction order before
2
23
my order had to do with the operation of the Maricopa County
24
Sheriff's Office, for you to read that order and understand its
25
basis?
14:15:46
14:16:00

11
A.
Absolutely.
Q.
Let me ask you, where did you get the characterization of
my order that you gave in the meeting two weeks ago?
A.
you who specifically.
incorrect statements that I made in conversation in

n -- in
i
meetings or in settings with others within the Sheriff

Sheriff's Office
that -- that those statements over the last,

suppose, six
, I suppos
suppo
months kind of permeated my brain, unfortunately,

rtunately, and stuck
rtunately
.C
OM
I thought about that, and I cannot, in all honesty, tell

ell
l
BO
with me, and unfortunately, and regrettably,

rettably, I used those.
rettably
11
Q.
12
bit with some more specificity.

ty.
ty
.
13
and I don't want to take things

hings from
fro your answer that aren't
14
correct, but I take it

t from you
your answer that the
15
characterization you
yo gave
ave
e of
o my order is sort of your summary
16
of meetings that
occurred at the Sheriff's Office, interactions
hat occurre
occ
17
that occurred
r d at
a the
h Sheriff's Office, conversations that
18
occurred
Sheriff's Office, perhaps other memos that you
ed
d at
t the
th S
19
received
at the
Sheriff's Office, during the time between when
ceived
eiv
t
20
I entered the findings of fact and conclusions of law and your
21
participation in the meeting last March, is that correct?

partic
parti
22
A.
14:16:45
Let me ask, I'm going to

down a little
o drill
dr
I take it from your answer,
14:17:00
IE
ND
OF
TH
EF
All right.
OG
10
FR
14:16:16
I can tell you, sir, that I heard

rd those
Almost.
14:17:19
No memos that I recall ever reading indicated the
2
23
incorrect facts that I used.
24
conversation in nonformal settings.
25
Q.
All right.
It was more -- it was more
And I think you used the word "meetings."
14:17:37

12
Were there meetings in which it was discussed?
1
A.
I don't know if "meetings" are accurate.
At times when I
might have been together with other deputies or office staff
members that we were just talking and those incorrect
statements were used, I retained them and then used them.

em.
.
Q.
specifically?
A.
I -- I do not, sir.
Q.
Do you recall how many of them were -were?

- there w
10
A.
I don't.
11
believe, that I -- is my best estimation,

timation,
timation
, about six months how
12
long I've been hearing those statements.

statem
statements
13
Q.
14
statements?
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
And have you heard

them from a number of different sources
hea
t
17
within the Maricopa

Sheriff's Office?
aricopa
ricopa County
C
18
A.
19
an honest,
clear recollection of who said it or where I heard
honest, cl
20
it, other than it's just something that wasn't uncommon to hear
it,
21
if that makes any sense.

at times,
ti
tim
22
Q.
.C
OM
BO
Do you recall any such meeting or conversation
14:18:09
EF
OG
And again, sir, it's been -- it was six months, I
TH
But would you say a number

times you've heard such
mber of
f t
OF
14:18:23
I don't have a --
I don't
about "a number of" them.
don
on't
t know
kn
ND
IE
FR
14:17:53
I think that I understand it.
14:18:41
Let me ask you, did you ever
2
23
have such a conversation with Lisa Allen?
24
A.
I don't reca -- no, sir.
25
Q.
Did you ever have such a conversation with Chief
14:18:54

13
Deputy Sheridan?
A.
Not that I can recall specific to that.
Q.
Did you ever have such a conversation with Sheriff Arpaio?

?
A.
I do not recall ever saying anything like that to him or

r
hearing that from him.
Q.
what I mean by "command staff"?
A.
I am, yes.
Q.
Did you ever have any such conversation

any command
tion with a
.C
OM
14:19:08
BO
If I use the term "command staff" at MCSO, are you clear

clea
10
staff member at MCSO?
11
A.
12
staff, or any -- any group that

statements were made.
hat those
tho
s
13
It's just general conversation

sation
tion that
hat I've had around the office
14
and in different areas.

s.
15
Q.
16
may be thinking
ng "no
no good deed goes unpunished."
17
you participated
community meeting, at least my
ci ated
te in
n the
t
18
understanding
tanding
anding is you participated at the request of community
OG
14:19:17
TH
EF
I wish I could honestly tell you the

the command
e group,
g
members.
mbers
ber .
20
A.
Yes,
Yes sir, that's correct.
21
Q.
And
you stated several times in the videotape, which I've
A
An
22
reviewed, that you wanted to tell them the whole truth, and you
rev
re
FR
IE
19
2
23
told them that particularly with respect to my order.
24
misstating --
25
A.
No, sir, you are not.
14:19:37
I realize that
ND
S
OF
Let me ask -- an
and, by
way, from your perspective, you
a
y the
t
th
14:19:54
Am I
14:20:06

Q.
You made some fairly specific statements to
that group and I want to talk to you about some of them
specifically.
my order -- or the order of this Court came down based on a
couple of points that the ACLU prevailed on.
You stated that the people with Hispanic -- that

at
14:20:42
Do you remember saying that?
.C
OM
All right.
14
A.
I absolutely do.
Q.
And that the first of those points was that people

-- that
p
the ACLU prevailed on was that people with

surnames
ith Hispanic
Hispan
Hispani
BO
were held 14 seconds longer than people

Hispanic
ople without
witho
withou
11
surnames.
12
A.
I do remember saying that.

t.
13
Q.
You've now reviewed my order.

orde .
order
14
A.
I have.
15
Q.
There is nowhere
where I even discuss that, is
er in
ere
n my order
o
16
there?
17
A.
There i
is not
not.
no
.
18
Q.
Do you recall
rec l where you would have gotten the impression
19
that
at
t my
m order relied on a determination that four -- that
20
people with
wit Hispanic surnames were held 14 seconds longer than
21
people without Hispanic surnames?

peopl
22
A.
OG
10
14:21:01
OF
TH
EF
Do you remember that?
ND
IE
FR
14:20:54
14:21:14
No, and as I previously testified to, or under oath stated,
2
23
I hadn't read the order prior to that -- ashamedly, again --
24
and so other than the conversations that I mention as to where
25
I had heard it, retained it, and then regurgitated it,
14:21:33

15
unfortunately, is the only place that I had heard that -- that
statement.
Q.
meeting with Chief Deputy Sheridan last week in which he made

de a
very similar statement.
A.
auditorium, yes, sir.
Q.
say that, and it apparently was repeated

d a number of times
Were you present -- you heard me discuss a
.C
OM
All right.
Were you present at that training?

ining
ng?
At the -- at the training
At the training -- yes, sir.
14:21:47
BO
And so at least one time you've heard Chief

Sheridan
hief Deputy
pu
throughout the department, if I understand

erstand your
you testimony
yo
11
correctly, is that fair?
12
A.
13
was at that, you know, that

actually, at the training
hat
t briefing,
briefin
14
auditorium that took place.

place.
15
I can neither say I heard

say it, nor can I say that I
ard
d him
h
hi
16
didn't hear him

im say it.
17
sir.
18
Q.
EF
I was
meeting
-- excuse me.
s at
a that
th
m
14:22:03
I was engaged in other activities.
OF
TH
No, sir, it isn't.
OG
10
14:22:22
I don't recall him having said that,
Whether or not you heard
19
Chief
ief
ef Deputy
puty Sheridan say it, you had heard it a number of
20
times and you can't be specific because you've heard it so many
21
times at other places throughout the MCSO.
22
A.
That is correct, sir.
FR
IE
ND
S
I appreciate
the specification.
appreciat
pprecia
2
23
Q.
All right.
24
got that -- from any specific conversation about that 14
25
seconds, other than that just seemed to be -- and again, I
14:22:37
And you can't give me a specific idea where you
14:22:54

16
don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me -- but
that was sort of the general received knowledge that's over at
the MCSO.
A.
It was my general perceived knowledge, yes.
Q.
All right.
because you didn't come up with it on your -- on your

our own,
ow ,
own
correct?
A.
I did not, correct.
Q.
And was that the view that seems to -- seemed to generally
.C
OM
14:23:07
10
prevail, as far as you're aware, over

MCSO?
er
r at
t the
he M
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
All right.
13
which this Court made a finding

that the MCSO was
nding tha
14
unconstitutionally detaining
in both its special
etaining
taining people
pe
peo
15
operations and its

normal
s n
mal
l operations?
o
op
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
All right.
ig t.
.
18
A.
The
that
e fact t
t we cannot hold an individual merely on the
19
fact
that an individual is here unlawfully or in
ct
t or
o the belief
b
20
country -the countr

count
21
Q.
All
right.
A
Al
22
A.
Yes, sir.
FR
BO
And you obtained that from others at the

he MCSO
MCSO,
,
2
23
Q.
Thank you.
24
about that, but you -- but you understand my -- or perhaps
25
you're indicating you don't have a disagreement about it.
OG
14:23:16
TH
EF
Now, are you aware of t

the actual facts now on
OF
14:23:32
IE
ND
Can
you review with me what some of those are?
an y
14:23:43
Let me stop you there.
I understand that you may have a disagreement
Do
14:23:54

17
you?
A.
I do not disagree with that.
Q.
All right.
Arpaio, among others, testified that in the two weeks before

ore
trial, even though MCSO wasn't conducting special operations,

rations
io ,
they detained 40 people that they couldn't -- that they
couldn't charge with a state crime and turned them over

to ICE.
ove t
.C
OM
I'm only now becoming aware of that

the 145
hat in
i reading
re
rea
11
pages.
12
Q.
13
I didn't mean to imply that

had.
hat
t you had
OG
A.
BO
which I based my determination?
10
14:24:20
I was not part of that trial

process,
so -rial proce
oc
I don't remember
member you testifying at trial, and
EF
That's true.
TH
Did you attend

nd any
ny part
ar of trial?
14
15
A.
No, sir.
16
Q.
All right.
17
that that w
was a basis
on which I entered the order.
s
18
A.
19
Q.
20
A.
It's
It s quite lengthy.
21
Q.
Fair
enough.
F
Fa
22
there -- I spent a long time on that order, and I'd reviewed -th
14:24:37
OF
But now that you've read the order, you realize
Among
yes, sir.
ong
ng other
othe things,
t
Yes.
Ye .
Yes
ND
IE
FR
14:24:05
Do you remember that that was one of the bases

base on
ba
8
9
And do you understand that at trial, Sheriff
Can you review what some of those other things are?

14:24:47
I mean, I'll review a few points, but
2
23
what I think, I reviewed the evidence quite extensively.
And
24
do you understand that one of the reasons I did that is whether
25
or not the MCSO agreed with me, I wanted them to understand
14:25:07

18
clearly the bases on which I found that they were violating the
constitutional rights of the plaintiff class?
.C
OM
Do you understand that?
3
A.
I absolutely understand that.
Q.
And do you understand why it would be crucial that you

you,
ou, as
the commander of those operations, have that understanding

and
standing an
that it be a correct understanding?
A.
And it shall be.
Q.
Now, I mean, you're aware that I found

the
und that
tha after
a
af
BO
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
-- that the sheriff trained

ned all 900 deputies that they had
13
the inherent authority to

law and that it
o enforce immigration
im
i
14
was a crime to be here

e illegally?
illegall
illegally
15
A.
I am reading that
now,
th
now
w, yes.
y
16
Q.
All right.
17
authority was
that to the extent MCSO was using
w s revoked
revok
18
noncertified
to detain people that they believed were
tified
fied officers
o i
19
in the countr
country without authorization, that that was also a
20
violation
violation?
21
A.
I haven't -- I don't recall that specifically.
22
Q.
That's all right.
2
23
over these, you remember that there was a LEAR policy that I
24
found that was unconstitutional?
25
A.
14:25:41
TH
EF
OG
287(g) authority was revoked --
10
RI
14:25:19
14:25:53
OF
And you understand that even before 287(g)
14:26:10
In any case, and we don't have to go
I have read that, yes, sir.
14:26:21

19
Q.
And you found -- and you remember that I had entered a
preliminary injunction in December of 2011 and I found that the
MCSO had not complied with my injunction?
A.
I have read that just within the last day or two, sir.
Q.
And you remember that Chief Sands, Lieutenant Sousa,

a,
Sergeants Palmer and Madrid, among others, testified

ed that that
tha
t
was the current practice of the MCSO?
A.
I have read that, yes, sir.
Q.
All right.
.C
OM
W
BO
So I think there's lots of other b

bases on which
I found that the detentions that the

e MCSO was doing both in the
11
operations and outside of the operations

not
perations
erations were
w
12
constitutional, and you're now

yourself with
ow familiarizing
fami
familiar
13
those?
14
A.
As quickly as I can.
an.
an
15
Q.
All right.
16
made to that assembled

group
was that I found that two MCSO
assembl
g
17
officers unconstitutionally
used race as one factor among
n onstituti
nstitu
18
others in
law enforcement decisions.
n making
maki
makin
14:26:50
TH
EF
OG
10
14:27:02
OF
Now,
ow, let
ow
et me ask you, another point that you
remember making that statement or something

Do you
y
ND
19
like it?
it?
21
A.
Yes,
I do.
Y
Ye
22
Q.
Do you have any idea who those two officers you assert I
IE
20
FR
14:26:35
2
23
based my testimony on were?
24
A.
25
not a hundred percent certain.
14:27:22
I believe it might have been Armendariz and Rangel, but I'm

14:27:37

Q.
And that would have been your characterization of
their testimony.
said that my opinion rested alone on two -- the testimony of
two officers, is there?
A.
There is not.
Q.
Do you remember where in the world you ever got

t -- and
a
I --
sorry, that makes it sound unfair, and I believe

ve that -- I
believe you're doing your best to give me truthful

testimony,
I
ruthf
ruthful
t
tes
appreciate it, and I appreciate that some

me of what you're
.C
OM
There's never anywhere in my opinion where I
14:27:46
BO
Okay.
20
telling me is very embarrassing to you personally,

and I don't
person
persona
11
want to embarrass you any more than

han I have
av to --
12
A.
Thank you.
13
Q.
-- so I don't want to
and I apologize for
o be argumentative
argume
14
that.
15
my opinion was based

se only
sed
nly
y on
o the testimony of a few officers of
16
what they did,

opinion specifically that found that you -, my opinio
op
17
you know, I -been careful to avoid the term "racial

- I have
a
18
profiling,"
ing
ng,
," but
bu I do think that my opinion clearly finds that
19
the
MCSO,
both as a matter of policy and practice, in and
e MCSO
MC
, bot
20
outside of saturation patrols, used race as one factor among
21
others in making law enforcement decisions.

other
14:28:14
OF
TH
Do you remember
r where
wher you
yo got the characterization that
ND
IE
22
FR
14:28:02
EF
OG
10
14:28:36
Can we agree that -- that my decision says that?
2
23
A.
It does, yes, sir, and I agree.
24
Q.
And my decision also found, or this Court's decision found,
25
that that was unconstitutional.
14:28:54

21
Do you agree that that's what the decision says?
1
2
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
All right.
characterization that that decision was based only upon the

he
action of two officers?
A.
usually hand in hand, if you will, so not knowing

ing where
wher I
specifically heard my first incorrect statement

14
ment regarding
regard
ga
seconds longer, I can no more tell you where the o

other usually
.C
OM
Do you have any recollection where you got the

e
14:29:08
hand-in-hand statement of and two deputies

were found to have
eputie wer
eputies
we
11
used race when making the determination

whether or not to
inati
ination
w
whe
12
arrest somebody, they were -- they were joined together usually
13
in that conversation or where

ere I had heard those things.
14
Q.
15
together, you'd heard

from a number of different sources
ea
ear
it fro
fr
16
throughout the
e MCSO over the six-month period that preceded
17
your participation
in the community meeting a few weeks ago?
ic pation
at
18
A.
Yes,
s, sir.
sir
ir.
.
19
Q.
20
source but that it was many sources, is that fair?
21
A.
22
way or the other.

wa
ND
All right.
right
TH
14:29:50
And you -- you couldn't identify any particular
Several,
many, yes, sir.
S
Se
FR
IE
And is
to say that if they are joined
s it
i fair t
OF
All right.
14:29:31
EF
OG
10
BO
Your Honor, both of those statements that I made

de were
wer
2
23
Q.
24
that?
25
A.
14:30:04
I can't argue -- I can't say one
But if I were to say, Was it more than 20? could you answer
I think 20 might be a little bit much.
I really can't put
14:30:21

22
a number on it, to be honest with you.
Q.
All right.
A.
Okay.
Q.
-- trying to --
A.
Sure.
Q.
I'm just trying to be as specific as we can be,

, but I'm
m not
n
trying to suggest that you should in any way be

e uncomfortable
uncomfort
with the testimony that you give me.
A.
Thank you.
10
Q.
You also indicated, I believe -- well,

talk for a
well let's
le
let
11
second.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
Do you understand the

e bases on which -- the multiple bases
14
on which I found that the

used race as one factor among
th MCSO u
15
others in making law enforcement

decisions?
nforce
orc
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
What are
of
r some
so
o those?
18
going to requir
require you to list them all.
requi
19
to make
mak sure that you have some idea of the depth and breadth
20
evidence on which I based my findings.

of the evi
21
A.
22
time?
tim
ti
2
23
Q.
24
factual findings were?
25
A.
And I'm not --
.C
OM
That's fine.
OG
BO
14:30:31
EF
You've now read my order.

r.
OF
TH
E
RI
14:30:39
And
I apologize.
A
An
14:31:03
Again, there are many; I'm not

But there are -- I want
14:31:16
Could you repeat the question one more
I was --
Sure.
Can you list what some of the bases of this Court's
Again, that we had detained drivers longer than was
14:31:29

23
reasonably necessary under the fourth and four -- I'm sorry.
Q.
Now I'm talking about what I will call the Fourteenth Amendment
nt
violation, which is loosely called racial profiling.
going to use that term, because what it is more precisely

sely
y is
the determination that the MCSO used race as one factor

actor among
mo
others in making law enforcement decisions in a way that was
not constitutional.
.C
OM
I've already kind of covered the Fourth Amendment part.
We're
re not
n
BO
14:31:47
Do you understand my question now?

now
9
A.
I don't, and I apologize.
I'm not trying to be difficult.
11
Q.
No, no, no.
12
at the reports that were made

e from what I called day labor
13
operations?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
And that I found

the only vehicles that were pulled
un that
und
hat
t th
t
16
over during day

were the vehicles that had
ay labor
labo operations
op
17
picked up a Hispanic
ispani occupant?
18
A.
19
Q.
20
small-scale
small
small-scal saturation patrols, vehicles were only stopped that
21
Hispanic occupants, apparently, by a number, at least, of

had Hi
ha
H
22
the arrest reports detailing the number of stops made during

th
OG
10
14:32:00
14:32:14
OF
TH
EF
Do you understand,
that I looked
nd, for example,
nd
e
exa
I recall
that
ecall t
t now.
14:32:25
FR
IE
ND
And
you recall that during what I called small -An do yo
2
23
the operation?
24
A.
I do recall that in your order now.
25
Q.
All right.
And do you recall that I similarly traced --
14:32:40

24
traced through the fact that the location for the large-scale
saturation patrols was based at least on some of the same
locations in which you'd conducted both small-scale saturation

n
patrols and day labor operations?
A.
it's there, either, sir.
Q.
.C
OM
All right.
Well, thank you.
Do you recall that Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Sands,

and
Sand
Sa
others, indicated that they did use race

among
e as one
on factor
f
fa
BO
others in determining who -- when officers

who they
fficers
ficer determined
de
det
11
would question once a vehicle was

s pulled over?
ov
12
A.
13
that -- that people who were

ancestry were
re of Latino
Lat
14
questioned.
15
that was attributed

ed to.
16
Q.
17
indicated t
that
at
t they weren't racially profiling because race
18
wasn't the
used in determining which vehicles to
h only
onl factor
f
19
pull
ll over?
over?
20
A.
Yes,
Yes sir.
21
Q.
And
do you recall, for example, my determination about the
A
An
22
fact that despite the testimony of some, but not all, MCSO
fa
OG
10
14:33:10
EF
I remember something in the ord

that stated the fact
order t
TH
I don't recall all

ll of the details to -- to who
14:33:30
OF
Do you recall
I discussed MCSO press releases that
call that
th
ND
IE
FR
14:32:57
I don't recall that in the order, but I don't doubt

t that
th
2
23
officers that there was a zero tolerance policy, that there was
24
in fact no such zero tolerance policy, or, if there was, it had
25
not been communicated to officers?
14:33:44
14:34:03

25
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
All right.
officers were directed to the ICE training that you received,
and in fact, in my decision, I did find that there was evidence

idence
en
that you were mistrained by ICE in this regard.
make any finding, did I, that the unconstitutional actions

actio
of
the MCSO were the result of the ICE training?
A.
Not that I noticed or read, sir.
Q.
All right.
.C
OM
Now, you indicated that the actions of the
14:34:18
BO
But I did
id not
Now, you indicated in the

he meeting that you
disagreed with my order, and as I've

that is
e indicated,
indicate
indicated
11
something you certainly have the

do, as long as you
e right
righ to d
12
correctly train your officers

s about the nature and basis and
13
understanding and effect of

and the factual bases on
f my order,
orde
rde
14
which it was made.
15
Office was appealing

in my
ing
y order.
ord
orde
14:34:40
EF
OG
10
TH
But
ut you
ou also
ls indicated that the Sheriff's
14:34:59
Now, in fairness
to you, that appeal had not been
fai
fairnes
OF
16
17
filed at the
h time that
tha you made that representation but it has
t
18
since -brief in the appeal has since been filed.

- the
he opening
o
op
Are you aware of what -- what parts of my order the
19
Sheriff's Office is -- or the sheriff has appealed and what

Sheriff's
21
parts of my order the sheriff has not appealed?
22
A.
No, sir.
2
23
Q.
When you said to the people in the community that my --
24
that the sheriff was going to appeal the order all the way to
25
the Supreme Court, what impression were you trying to give
RI
20
14:35:15
14:35:29

26
them?
A.
asked of me by someone in the audience, and I was, as I had
stated at the beginning of that meeting, being honest with

h
them.
been told or heard, with regards to what I incorrectly

ctly believed
believ
to be how we got to this point, and then the fact

act that there
th
was an appeal that was going to be filed and

d that
tha the
h sheriff
has stated -- publicly, I believe -- that

at he would
woul appeal it
.C
OM
Your Honor, I was responding to a question that had been
14:35:49
BO
And so I was simply telling them what I knew, or

r had
ha
all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court

Court.
ourt.
.
11
Q.
12
the Ninth Circuit to make the

decision, is that fair to
e right dec
13
say?
14
A.
That is fair to say.

say
ay.
15
Q.
Where did you get

that
g
at impression?
i
16
A.
From the Ninth Circuit

-- or rather -C
Circu
17
Q.
I'm talking
the Ninth Circuit -- about the Ninth
al ing
ng about
o
18
Circuit's
about your lack of confidence in the Ninth Circuit
t's
s -- a
19
in terms
your appeal.
ter
of y
20
A.
21
honest, as I have to be here -- that the Ninth

I' being
I'm
b
be
22
Circuit was very liberal, and that this appeal probably

Ci
OG
10
14:36:12
EF
And you also expressed, I believe,

lack of confidence in
lieve, a la
lieve
14:36:25
ND
OF
TH
I did
id say it.
14:36:37
FR
IE
Over the
years I have seen or heard, I suppose, that -- if
t
2
23
wouldn't get -- get any results, or at least the results that I
24
anticipated that the Sheriff's Office was looking for.
25
Q.
Do you remember whether that was part of the training that
14:37:02
27
Chief Sheridan gave that you recall hearing from
Chief Sheridan?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Do you remember hearing from Chief Sheridan the idea
that -- I think Chief Sheridan said three, not two, but

t do you
ou
remember him saying that my decision resulted merely

ly from
fro the
t
acts of three officers?
at all?
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
All right.
11
participated in any other community

like the one that
nity
ity meetings
meeti
meeting
12
you participated in on the 15th?

5th?
5th
13
A.
14
meeting, if you will, one

had been requested of us, and
on that h
15
not court ordered or

mandated that we perform, so yes is
o court
ourt
rt m
16
the answer.
17
Q.
18
meetings.
gs.
.
19
A.
20
Q.
21
characterize the Melendres versus Arpaio decision?

charac
chara
22
A.
I did not.
2
23
Q.
Were those meetings videotaped?
24
A.
I be -- yes, sir.
25
Q.
I noted that there were handouts that you made at the 15th
BO
14:37:24
EF
OG
Let me ask, did you participate

-- have you
participa
participat
The one on
15th, sir, was a -- a voluntary
n the 15t
OF
14:37:42
And you
participated in some court-mandated
ou have
ave also
al
Yes.
Ye .
Yes
ND
IE
14:37:16
Do you have any recollection

lection of
f that
TH
Yes and no.
.C
OM
FR

And in those court-mandated meetings did you ever
14:37:50
Yes.
14:38:04

28
of March meeting, is that correct?
A.
pamphlets or the books, integrity-accountability handbooks, and

nd
I believe they also brought some other pamphlets, but I'm not
ot
sure as to what they were.
Q.
Okay.
A.
I have reviewed the integrity-accountability

ty book
book,
, for
fo lack
of a better term, in the past, and I don't recall

I've
recal if
f I
looked at the other pamphlets.
.C
OM
Our implementation unit brought with them the -- the
14:38:25
BO
Did you review that material?
I may have,
ave, I just
ave
us -- I don't
recall if I have or haven't at this point.

point
11
Q.
12
and how did you come to participate

icipate in it?
13
A.
14
part of the month, I'm

sure of the exact date, but
m not exactly
exact
exac
15
it was a Saturday,
and
one of, I believe, seven
, a
d it
t was
w
wa
16
community meetings
that, per your order, we were required to
tings that
t
17
perform before
end of the year.
f re
e the en
18
was to be at w
was the one located down on -- at our -- what
19
we -- Dysart
sart and Avondale Road.
OG
10
At the December
and it was the latter
er 2013 meeting,
mee
OF
TH
Sure.
EF
How did you first find out about

March 15th meeting,
bout the
e Ma
14:39:01
And the location that I
And at that meeting there were two women that actually

A
20
14:38:39
approached us at the end, and they asked if we would be

approa
appro
22
willing -- "we" being myself and the other deputy that was with
wi
2
23
me -- to attend a meeting that they organized that they
24
scheduled date/time/location, to which we said, Sure, you bet.
25
We'd be happy to do that.
RI
21
14:39:24
14:39:44

29
Q.
Let me ask, have you ever been present in trainings in
which the Melendres versus Arpaio findings of fact or other
decisions were discussed?
A.
I recall something, something that had to do with that,

, but
bu I'm
I'
not a hundred percent sure.
Q.
sure, but to the extent you have any recollection,

would
ectio , when
ection
w
whe
that have been?
.C
OM
I know I'm not supposed to guess, but for some reason I --
I understand that you're not a hundred percent

pe
BO
All right.
A.
Yeah, I'm -- I'm not sure I actually

ually was
s at
a something like
11
that.
12
in your order as training, which

were
clearly not.
hich they
th
w
13
Q.
14
could testify to about

ut
t any such
ch training?
15
A.
No, sir, not that

I can recall right now.
th
tha
16
Q.
All right.
17
seen anything
electronically or otherwise, that
hi g in
i writing,
wr
writ
18
would attempt
tempt to characterize my decision that was distributed
19
within
MCSO?
thin
hin the
he MC
20
A.
21
ashamedly, again -- never opened them up and simply read them.

ashame
asham
22
Q.
OG
10
14:40:30
EF
I may be confusing the conversations

regarding Melendres
nversatio
nversations
TH
Do you have any other

that you feel like you
r impressions
impressio
14:40:46
OF
you testified earlier that you've never

I think
th
ND
IE
FR
14:40:09
I'd
the e-mails that contained the order.
I'd received
re
All right.
I --
14:41:09
And none of your command staff ever indicated
2
23
that you should read it.
24
A.
25
needed to read this.
I believe I recall Chief Sheridan saying that we -- we

14:41:33

30
Q.
And you just didn't do it.
A.
I did not.
Q.
Are you aware of anyone else that has read my order in the
e
MCSO?
A.
that's not to say, Your Honor, that they didn't.
Q.
I understand.
A.
Okay.
Q.
But you don't have any personal knowledge,

other than
wledge, oth
wledge
ot
.C
OM
But
B
BO
yourself, that anyone at MCSO has read

findings of fact and
ead
ad my find
fin
11
conclusions of law in its entirety.

ety
ty.
12
A.
OG
10
Chief,
ef,
, I think I'm done with my questions
for you, but in fairness,

to give your counsel the
ess, I'm
ess
I'm going
g
go
15
opportunity to ask
you any
follow-up questions if they wish.
k yo
ny f
16
Then I'm going

Mr.
Pochoda the same opportunity if he
g to give
gi
M
17
wishes, and
have a few other clarification
d then
he I might
mi
18
questions.
ons
ns.
19
for
r being as truthful as you could be.
14:42:11
OF
TH
14
ND
But
Bu I do thank you for appearing, and I thank you
THE WITNESS:
T
21
THE COURT:
Mr. Casey.
22
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, may I have plaintiffs'
IE
20
FR
14:41:56
EF
Correct.
THE COURT:
13
14:41:42
Not that I could testify that in fact they did, no.

.
Thank you, sir.
2
23
counsel, if he chooses, to question first, since I guess
24
technically it's my witness.
25
THE COURT:
Yeah, I think that's fair.
14:42:27
14:42:34

Trombi - Exam by Mr. Pochoda - Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/3/14 31
Mr. Pochoda do you have any questions for
Chief Trombi?
MR. POCHODA:
I just had one, Your Honor.
.C
OM
EXAMINATION
4
5
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
and put in the newspaper?
A.
That was in the Arizona Republic?
Q.
Yes.
10
A.
I believe I did, sir, yes.
11
Q.
And do you recall anything from

rom that piece?
pi
12
A.
Do I -- I'm sorry, sir?
13
Q.
Do you recall that that

hat
t piece
piece,
, let me be more specific,
14
included this statement

nt that
ha the
th -- that detentions were found
15
to be illegal because
this 14-second gap?
au
aus
of thi
th
16
A.
17
it was or wasn't.
w n't.
18
Q.
19
published
blished in the Arizona Republic, is that correct?
20
A.
21
the day it came out, couple day -- I don't know.

was t
th
22
Q.
14:42:50
TH
EF
OG
BO
Chief, have you read the op-ed piece Chief Sheridan

ridan wrote
o
14:43:04
OF
I don't recall
that in there, but I don't know if
ecall reading
r
readi
But
would
t you wou
wo
d have read it approximately the date it was
ND
IE
FR
14:42:39
Possibly.
Possib
I don't know.
I can't tell you exactly if it
14:43:18
And other than that, the judge asked you had you read
2
23
anything in writing that characterized the requirements under
24
the order for the MCSO personnel, including yourself?
25
A.
Not until just recently being -- reading the judge's
14:43:37

Trombi - Exam by Mr. Pochoda - Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/3/14 32
hundred-and-some-odd pages, and then the -- the other document
that -- or order that he placed on us.

MR. POCHODA:
MR. CASEY:
Thank you.
Nothing further.
.C
OM
Your Honor, I have no questions, but I do

d
have -- would like to address the Court and express -- express

xpress
some points and make an objection for the record.

THE COURT:
All right.
Do you want to
at the
o do that
tha a
end?
Because there may be some other objections

ctions
tions you
u want to
make for the record, but if you'd like to do i

that's
it now,
n
no
BO
fine with me.

MR. CASEY:
11
OG
10
Very briefly, let

you what defense counsel
et me
e tell
t
13
has tried to do to figure

e out about this 14 seconds and the two
14
persons, and I think ---
TH
EF
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
T:
You
know what?
ou kno
kn
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Yeah.
Yea
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
I really don't want to cut you off.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
Okay.
OF
15
18
THE COURT:
ND
19
20
But in terms -- just for what it's worth,
Mr. Casey -Mr.
14:44:30
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
22
THE COURT:
-- I have no presumption that -- and no
IE
14:44:20
If the Court's --
21
FR
14:44:07
Yeah, let's do this,

this
s, perhaps, piecemeal,
12
17
14:43:53
2
23
reason to believe that counsel has acted other than
24
professionally in this matter.
25
not really interested in the counsel that you would have given
I am not, with all due respect,

14:44:42

to your clients.
What I'm interested in is what your clients have
2
3
It's none of my business, anyway.
done --
.C
OM
33
MR. CASEY:
Yes.
THE COURT:
-- in terms of reading the order, and

n
informing themselves about the order, and fairly characterizing

haracterizi
the order within the MCSO, so what the perception

ion is there.
ther
MR. CASEY:
Sure.
THE COURT:
And I believe that from Chief

Chie Trombi I've
BO
received what I need to -- needed to

o hear
hear.
OG
10
I'll give you time to do it, but I want to do it at the end of
13
the meeting, okay?

MR. CASEY:
Okay
Okay.
It's
It
t' -- yeah, it is less about
TH
14
EF
12
anything about counsel,

un
uns
but I think it -- what I was going to
16
share with you

at least for edification, because your
u I thought
tho
17
order mentions
concerns about operating in good faith, it
i ns
s concer
conc
18
really doesn't
doesn't -- look, we've made our advice and
ND
S
19
recommendations
as counsel.
commendatio
ommendatio
20
way or the other about some of the things you mentioned.
IE
FR
2
23
14:45:16
OF
15
22
14:45:04
So if you want to tell me about th

that, that's fine,
11
21
14:44:51
We're not concerned, really, one

14:45:35
But what we are concerned about is addressing to you
what we've tried to piece together about how this comes

wh
together that it's --
24
THE COURT:
All right.
Well, let me tell you where --
25
You can step down, Chief.
14:45:46

THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
34
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Let me tell you, I am going to
raise in a few minutes, but it's going to be in a few minutes,

,
some concerns about whether any additional modifications need

ed
to be made to the injunction about the training, and I think

hi
that what you say might be helpful in that context,

perhaps
, and perha
r
even more helpful in that context, so can I get

put it
t you to pu
off until then?
.C
OM
13
Yes, Your
OG
Honor.
11
12
Your Honor, it's your

our court.
court
THE COURT:
But you did have

objection you wanted
hav an
n ob
MR. CASEY:
Just
the record, Your Honor,
t briefly for
f
to enter?
I'm sorry.
15
have an appeal, an
respectfully, Your Honor -n objection,
ob ection
tio
Yes.
Yes
MR.
CASEY:
R CASEY
CA
:
-- an objection that your rulings on the
non-saturation
turation
uration patrol days, or the regular patrol days set
IE
ND
S
18
THE COURT:
COURT:
19
forth
rth
th in your May 24th, 2013, order, not as you have
20
characterized those particular bases in your order.

characteri
21
FR
22
2
23
14:46:22
OF
17
I just wanted
on the record, because we do
nte to
nted
t place
pl
pla
TH
14
16
14:46:15
EF
10
BO
MR. CASEY:
14:45:57
14:46:38
I'm not suggesting anything in that, other than I have
not had a chance to study how you characterized your questions

no
with those factual findings --
24
THE COURT:
That's fine.
25
MR. CASEY:
And I don't want it to be used by anyone
14:46:52

in amici or otherwise to suggest that your characterization
today is the ruling, and that -- I don't believe that's the
case.
THE COURT:
.C
OM
35
That is not the case.
Whatever I've said

ai
in my order, to the extent you feel I may have characterized

it
erized
i
i
differently today, whatever I said in my order is what I said

aid
in my order and that is what my order contains.
And the final objection,

Honor,
is
on
n, Your
Yo
H
Hon
BO
MR. CASEY:
14:47:03
there were some characterizations about the testim

testimony of
testi
Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Sands, and I just
wanted to put on the
jus wan
wa
11
record just the objection that we

e have
hav the
th trial transcript
12
that will address what exactly

ly they said.
sai
13
Court's order drawing its

conclusions is its findings of fact
s conclusio
14
dated May 24th, 2013, but t

transcript dictates exactly what
the tr
t
15
the witnesses said.

d.
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
14:47:18
Obviously, the
TH
EF
OG
10
Thank
hank
nk you.
y
14:47:37
OF
agree that the transcript states exactly

I a
what they s
said.
id
d.
Let
e me say that to the extent there's any
18
difference
ence
nc in what they said and what my order finds, my order
19
is the part
you have to worry about.
art y
ND
17
MR. CASEY:
M
20
Absolutely, and I also want to place on
record that I totally -- I completely agree with the Court.

the re
th
r
22
You're able to draw inferences from the testimony and reach

Yo
FR
IE
21
14:47:49
2
23
your own conclusions.
24
that the testimony is in the record --
25
THE COURT:
I just wanted to place on the record
Correct.
14:48:04

36
MR. CASEY:
-- your conclusions are in your order.
THE COURT:
That's correct.
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Now, let me raise another point with both

ot
Thank you.
.C
OM
parties before we proceed with other matters, and you've

ve given
me some -- I've given you some draft changes, you've

ve given
giv
me
your feedback; I want to cover those.
14:48:11
But I do believe that -- and it's a point

point,
poi
, I think,
BO
counsel, that you've alluded to, my order

and to
er is m
my order,
o
or
10
the extent that you have appealed my

order,
there -- there is
y order
orde
, th
t
11
some -- there are some very real limits

on
limi
o my ability to now
12
change that order.
14:48:32
EF
OG
But I don't think,

mean to mischaracterize
nk, and I don't
d
your views expressed last week,
week there was a whole lot of
15
disagreement about
fact
t the
t
act that I still have the right to
16
enforce my order,
-- well, I'll quote to you from
der,
der
, and
an that
th
17
Hoffmann v. Beer
Beer,
is at 536 F.2d 1268, quote:
ee , which
w
whi
18
the court
supervises
a continuing course of conduct and where
urt
rt super
supe
i
19
as new facts develop additional supervisory action by the court
20
an appeal from the supervisory order does not

is required,
require
21
divest the district court of jurisdiction to continue its

dives
22
supervision, even though in the course of that supervision the

sup
su
2
23
court acts upon or modifies the order from which the appeal is
24
taken."
25
So clearly, the revisions to the order I sent out for
14:48:50
"... where
14:49:12
IE
ND
OF
TH
14
FR
13
14:49:27

37
you to comment on do revise the order in some aspects.
They
revise the order because I found that, last week, and we don't
need to go through everything we found last week, the sheriff
does not want to participate in the community outreach efforts

forts
rt
that the order contained.
.C
OM
14:49:51
As I considered my ability to enforce that

order,
t order
orde
, I
was uncomfortable with the thought that I would

d hold the
sheriff in contempt for saying whatever he wanted

wante to
o say in a
community meeting, and because that didn't

n't really accomplish
BO
the purpose for which the order was implemented,

because there
implement
implemente
11
were, I think, legitimate doubts by plaintiff

about the
plain
plainti
12
adequacy of the implementation,

I'm not necessarily
on, even
on
eve though
th
13
making a finding of that,

sheriff didn't want to
, the sheri
14
participate in that, he didn

didn't
did
't
t want to participate in the
15
community advisory
board,
y b
rd,
, I stayed the order at the -- at the
16
sheriff's suggestion,
and I didn't hear a whole lot of dispute
gestion, an
gestion
17
from the sheriff's

that I could revise the order in that
h riff
if 's office
of
18
respect.
t.
TH
OF
ND
I'm right or wrong, Mr. Casey, now's the time to do it.

whether I
IE
21
FR
22
14:50:20
want to say something on the record or indicate

If you
y
19
20
14:50:04
EF
OG
10
MR. CASEY:
14:50:33
Your Honor, I would agree with your
assessment that you have what we describe as supervisory

as
2
23
jurisdiction over your order and the ability to enforce it
24
without impacting the appeal.
25
any remand or anything like that.
I don't think there needs to be

The sheriff's particular
14:50:50

objection was not to community outreach, which he intends to
do, which he has been doing as demonstrated by the voluntary,
but being compelled by a federal court to do that.
.C
OM
That --
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CASEY:
-- was the distinction I just wanted

ted
d to
put on the record.

THE COURT:
14:51:05
38
I recognize that that's the

he sheriff's
sheriff'
sheriff'
position, and let me just say -- and to the extent

this is part
exte
t
thi
of your appeal existing then it will be judged jus

just the same as
ju
BO
every other part of my appeal, or my

y order.
orde .
order
11
order itself indicates that there

significant part of the
e wa
was a sig
s
12
Maricopa County population, and I

I've
said this before, I said
've
v sa
13
it last week, that has been

deprived for a considerable
een
n deprive
14
number of years of some

constitutional rights, and that
me basic
as
c
co
15
in that light, some

outreach is required.
me community
mmunit
uni
But
I think the
B
14:51:21
TH
EF
OG
10
I understand
derstan the
derstand
th view that you've set forth.
OF
16
14:51:37
The
sheriff wants
it on his own, he does not want to do so
n
t do
to
o i
18
under any
supervision
of the Court, and that does not change my
ny super
supe
i
ND
S
17
view
ew
w that in light of the constitutional violations that I
20
that particularly the community that had its rights

found, tha
found,
21
infringed is entitled to have confidence in the process which

infrin
infri
22
the Court orders to effectuate change.

th
14:51:59
FR
IE
19
2
23
So to the extent that the sheriff chooses not to be
24
involved, I am going to order that the monitor assume those
25
functions, and that's why I sent out my order, and that's going
14:52:18

to be the basis on which I enter that order as well as
everything that was said last week.
not be disagreement.
Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
14:52:33
Your Honor, I mean, we -- we filed
I realize there may or may

y
.C
OM
Any questions about that?
something yesterday.
I take it you received our

ur --
I have, and I'm going to go over

e those
10
MR. CASEY:
All right.
11
THE COURT:
-- point by
both parties.
y point
poin with
wi
12
MR. POCHODA:
13
THE COURT:
OG
things --
No questions,
Honor.
estions, Your
estions
Yo
All right
right.
ight.
.
Well, then let's take up,

We
then, and I intend to take up th

the proposed revisions to my
t
15
draft order made by the

ACLU
e AC
ACL
LU first, and then we'll go over your
16
proposed revisions
the MCSO.
sions from
f
Paragraph
109, the ACLU wanted me to -- instead of one
Pa
agraph
graph 10
17
ND
S
community
wanted me to do one on the east side, one on
ity
y meeting,
meeti
meet
the
side, and then do up to three community -- or three
e west side
20
meetings on both sides as opposed to the one to three in each
21
district.
distri
distr
IE
19
FR
22
2
23
14:52:53
OF
TH
14
18
14:52:41
EF
BO
THE COURT:
39
14:53:27
Do you want to be heard on that at all, Mr. Pochoda?

MR. POCHODA:
Well, we just want to say briefly, Your
24
Honor, we were trying to balance.
We very much appreciated
25
the -- the draft from the Court that recognized the importance
14:53:38

40
of community involvement.
practicalities of people being able to turn out, and we thought
that it would be more effective if we didn't go by the five
districts.
easier on the defendants to basically split the county

y into
nt two
tw
districts and only have two meetings per year as opposed

pposed to
o
five districts, with three meetings per year in

district.
n each dist
So we were trying to work out the practicalities

have an
lities
ities to ha
effective format for the meetings.
14:53:56
14:54:13
Your Honor,
nor, I think
nor
thin most of the comments I
EF
MR. CASEY:
BO
OG
Anything you want

ant to say
ay on that,
Mr. Casey?
12
13
As it turns out, I would think it would make it
THE COURT:
10
11
We wanted to balance that with the
.C
OM
would say -- may I go over

er here?
here
THE COURT:
Yeah,
Yeah
Yea
, but
t I -- I hope your comments aren't
TH
14
going to be too terribly

because we've got a lot to go
er
erri
ly long,
lo
lon
16
through.
14:54:24
OF
15
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
17
Your Honor, most of my comments are
identical
this.
cal
al on t
The question that the defendant has, it's
19
really
underlying basis of everything of the objection, is
ally the
he un
20
that your remedy order is to protect the plaintiffs' federal,
21
constitutional, and statutory rights, but not to go any further

consti
const
22
than necessary to assure the defendants' compliance with

th
14:54:38
FR
IE
ND
18
2
23
federal law, and the CAB and the community meetings, we're
24
having great difficulty understanding how that assures the
25
MCSO's compliance.
14:55:03

41
You know, I understand like today how this will help
1
2
lead to compliance in understanding the order, because you
can't comply unless you understand.
whether it's my client or the monitor, how -- that seems to be

b
the fundamental question:
.C
OM
THE COURT:
How does it assure compliance?

nce?
?
14:55:20
Let me just say, for what it's

worth,
s worth
wort
, I
But it seems to me that
understood the basis of your objection, and having

it
ving made
mad i
once, you can just say the same thing if you

ou
u want
wan to
o repeat it.
BO
MR. CASEY:
No, thank you.
10
THE COURT:
But it does seem

because the
em to me that
t
th
OG
sheriff does not want to be involved,

not going to make
lved,
lved
, and
nd I'm
I
12
the sheriff be involved, the community

meetings and the CAB do
commun
13
change their fundamental nature

nature.
ature.
14
point is correct.
15
some changes.
EF
11
14:55:30
Rather -- and I think your

R
TH
Rather
being -- so I'm going to make
the than b
ther
14:55:46
Rather
something that tries to rehabilitate
er than being
bei
OF
16
17
the MCSO in
n the
he eyes
ye of the community, the CAB and the
18
community
meetings serve, it seems to me, two essential
ity
y meeti
meet
19
purposes.
rpos .
rposes
20
monitor is doing to monitor and implement my order

what the m
21
MCSO; and the second is to serve the investigative

with the
t
22
function of the monitor in terms of taking complaints from the

fu
2
23
community that your office isn't complying with the order, and
24
being able to investigate those complaints.
One is to build community confidence in at least

On
RI
14:56:03
25
So it is true, and I am going to make some changes
14:56:24

42
that reflect that difference.
rehabilitate the reputation of the MCSO among the aggrieved
community.
community and inform the aggrieved community about what the

he
monitor is doing to assure compliance with my order.
the monitor's job to take complaints from the community

unity and
d to
t
investigate those complaints through the MCSO.
.C
OM
But it is the monitor's job to assure the aggrieved

ed
BO
clarifying changes pursuant to your suggestions

indicate
gestion that
gestions
t
th
that that is the nature of the monitor's
tor
or's
s authority.
autho
uth
11
extent that your objection nonetheless

persists, you've got an
theless
heles pers
pe
12
appeal, and you've preserved it for appeal.

app
And to the
All right, Mr. Casey

Casey?
sey?
?
14
MR. CASEY:
yes,
Yes -- yes
s Your Honor.
15
THE COURT:
T:
right.
All rig
ri
16
comments made by both

bot sides.
si
17
know if, Chief

Martinez,
you want to say anything on this
h ef
f Martin
t
18
point, but one of

f the things that I've implemented in the order
ND
S
OF
TH
13
So I'm going to consider the
20
shows up
up,
, I've left in my order the ability -- well, that's one
21
eventuality.
eventu
event
22
going to have the ability to monitor the MCSO's independent

go
FR
IE
is that
these meetings are adequately noticed and nobody
tha if th
25
14:57:08
I will say that -- and I don't
19
24
14:56:56
EF
OG
10
2
23
14:56:40
And
d it is
i
And so I'll make some -- I think I'll

'll
ll make some
so
8
9
It's not the monitor's job to
14:57:25
The other eventuality is the monitor's still
outreach.
So if the monitor feels like the MCSO is doing an -an adequate job on outreach, and/or if it notices these
14:57:42

43
meetings and nobody shows up, then I've preserved in the order,
and I think you've both noted it, the ability for the monitor
to come back and say, These meetings have served their purpose,
e,
and recommend the cancellation or the modification of the
meeting format.
.C
OM
I'm all into that for both of those reasons.

easons
so .
But I've also talked to my monitor, and he's

e's indicated
indicat
that just to divide it into one-half of the county

unty and the
th
other half of the county is such a large group

roup
oup that
t
it makes it
completely infeasible to have any sort of personal

persona impact on
BO
the policing.
14:58:19
OG
10
So he recommends that we
divide
into two
e don't
don
d
div
11
communities, that we have one

meeting for the whole
e community
commu
13
county one month, and then

en that we have from between one to
14
three meetings in each

h district annually, he can decide.
15
if we don't get any

participation
in those meetings so that
ny p
rticip
ici
16
they aren't doing

anything other than providing expense to the
oing anythi
an
17
county, he's going to come back and say, We cancel these.
18
if he determines
that MCSO is doing adequate community
determin
termin
And
outreach,
treach
rea , then
the we cancel these.
But if we get participation, if he gets meaningful
B
20
complaints in these community meetings, then he can pursue

compla
compl
22
them.
th
FR
IE
21
14:58:48
And that is something that during the course of the
2
23
order, as is the case with everything, both parties can make
24
comments to the Court on.
25
14:58:32
Or
ND
S
OF
TH
EF
12
19
14:57:57
MR. POCHODA:
All right?
That's fine, Your Honor.
14:59:03

THE COURT:
44
Moving on to the next one, it seems to me
that you -- in paragraph 110 you want to incorporate the
community advisory board within the community meetings, and
that just seems to me to confuse the issue, Mr. Pochoda.
is a community advisory board.
I'm not going to necessarily coordinate one and require

quire the
e
monitor to discuss what happens at the community

ty advisory board
in the community meetings unless the monitor

that it
r thinks
thi
th
makes sense to do so and the information

public.
n is otherwise
other
otherw
BO
So I'm not inclined to accept that revision

evision to
t the order.
Do you understand where I'm
from?
I'm
m coming
mi
12
MR. POCHODA:
13
THE COURT:
MR. CASEY:
Y:
EF
Do you
any comment on that,
u have
hav an
I just
ust repeat my same objection before,
14:59:45
OF
Your Honor.
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
18
14:59:37
That's
s fine
fine.
TH
Mr. Casey?
15
16
14:59:19
There are community meetings.

eetings
in .
11
14
There
he
OG
10
.C
OM
That's fine.
Thank you for doing so in
such an
and efficient manner.
n economical
econom
110 -- I'm sorry, in paragraph 111,
On paragraph
p
19
you -- you put something in there, Mr. Pochoda, that says that
21
and attorneys can attend.

your representatives
r
22
public meeting.
pub
pu
2
23
attend.
24
line in there.
25
community meeting.
RI
20
It's a community meeting.
15:00:05
Well, it's a
Of course you can
I don't really know that it's necessary to put that

Is there any reason why I should?
Anybody can attend.
It's a
It's open to the
15:00:21

public.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
That's fine.
Do you want to repeat again your same
.C
OM
objection, Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
have the CAB in there again.
in a minute in a different section but I want

nt to keep
e the two
separate.
Thank
nk you.
you
yo .
BO
Again, we talk about

bout CAB in a --
OG
in here?
MR. POCHODA:
13
THE COURT:
All right.
right
ight.
.
14
MR. CASEY:
Same
Your Honor.
Sam objection,
objec
object
15
THE COURT:
T:
Thank
you, Mr. Casey.
hank
nk y
16
In fact,
act,
act
, can
ca I just say that with respect to
We are.
e.
TH
OF
15:00:49
everything
the same objection, and then the only time
g you
u have
e t
18
you have
is if you have something in addition to
ve to
o indicate
in
19
that.
at
t.
ND
17
MR. CASEY:
M
Yes, I agree, Your Honor.
21
THE COURT:
All right.
IE
20
FR
2
23
15:00:43
EF
12
22
15:00:30
Again in paragraph
h 111 you
Do you understand why I'm not inclined

to put the CAB
inclin
incline
10
11
45
Thank you.
15:00:59
Paragraph 112, the plaintiffs
suggest 10 days as opposed to one-week notification.

su
Do you
care one way or the other?
24
MR. CASEY:
No.
25
THE COURT:
All right.
Paragraph 112, again you
15:01:14

request that I put in here the review -- put in the review
authority, Mr. Pochoda, the ability to compel the MCSO to
attend such meetings.

I'm not going to do that.
.C
OM
46
I think it would be great,

reat
at,
it might be more economical for the MCSO to attend such

h
meetings, but they've made clear they don't want to

such
o attend
atte
su
meetings, and I'm not going to compel them to do somethin

something that
I would not enforce with the compulsory powers

Court if
wers
ers of
o this
h
they violated.
BO
So I don't see the point

putting that in
t in puttin
putti
here now when I don't have any intention

enforcing it later.
ntion
tion of
f en
e
OG
10
something might happen in the

e course
cours of the order that's rare
13
that you would suggest arises

the compulsory power of this
rises
ses to
t th
14
Court.
15
is a flex -- this is
that has flexibility built into
i an
n order
ord
orde
16
it.
EF
12
OF
TH
If that's the case you can raise it then.
Again, this
MR.
MR
R. POCHODA:
P H
We do, Your Honor.
I would just say
18
that,
if the Court is not planning to enforce
at
t, well,
well
ll, obviously,
ob
20
it, that would make some of this a nullity, but we want to make
it,
21
clear that the Court has the authority and power to enforce it.
IE
ND
19
FR
15:02:12
Do
my predisposition?
o you
ou understand
under
d
17
2
23
15:01:52
Now, it may be true that

t we might
gh arrive at --
11
22
15:01:32
THE COURT:
15:02:23
Well, and maybe I do; I'm not deciding I
don't have the authority and power.
24
MR. POCHODA:
25
THE COURT:
I just --
But I'm just saying that in terms of the
15:02:35

47
practicality, it's a weird case because Sheriff Arpaio is a
politician.
believe, and even if I find that he's misinforming the public
about something, unfortunately, he can do that under the First

rs
Amendment, or at least even if he can't do it, and even

n if
i I
have the power to compel him to do otherwise, unless

ss he puts
t
forth a real case that he is doing otherwise sufficient

to the
ufficien t
ufficient
fact that it causes me grave concern, I'm not

ot going to hold him
in contempt for just that.
.C
OM
And Sheriff Arpaio has the right, even if I
BO
Now, as I made clear today,

with
, and in discussing
d
di
OG
10
Chief Trombi, it doesn't mean that

statements may
at his
hi public
pu
publ
12
not carry over into how the MCSO percei

perceives what he's saying as
pe
13
their leader, and how that

at impacts their performance of the
14
other -- of the other

under this order.
r obligations
obligation
obligatio
15
does, the fact that

misstating things in public and that
at he is
s mi
m
16
it is affecting
of his officers under the parts
ng the performance
perf
17
of the order
e will
wi
b taken up under those other parts of the
be
18
order.
19
which
going to find him in contempt.
ich
ch I'm
m goi
And if it
15:03:32
ND
isn't irrelevant, but it isn't a basis alone on

It isn
I
Do you understand what I'm saying?

D
21
MR. POCHODA:
IE
20
FR
15:03:08
OF
TH
EF
11
22
15:02:53
15:03:44
We do, Your Honor, and we're somewhat
puzzled because we never stated anywhere, including in our

pu
2
23
suggestions to the Court today, that the sheriff has to attend
24
any one of these meetings, we didn't expect the sheriff to
25
attend any one of these meetings, nor that any particular
15:03:57

48
message had to be given by any of the representatives of the
MCSO.
order requires, in a number of the provisions, that there be a
mandatory showing up of some representative of the MCSO,
whether it's to take a complaint from a citizen; whether

er it's
s
to answer the questions from a monitor.
defendants were accepted, there would be no remedial

medial orders
orde
that would persevere under a First Amendment

-nt
t challenge
challen
.C
OM
-- it's just a frivolous

position,
frivolo
frivolou
and --
I agree with all

of that.
a
o
EF
THE COURT:
12
BO
Oh, well --
MR. POCHODA:
10
14
about orders that I am

to enforce.
m willing t
15
that I'm willing to enforce

force
rce something which is going to require
16
the MCSO to speak

truthfully.
peak even
ev
t
And I don't know
I will
it as relevant as it relates to other
ill
ll consider
consi
n
17
obligations,
but I'm not sure that I'm willing to enforce such
tions
ons,
, b
19
an order,
ord , and that's why I'm -- I'm disinclined to enter the
order
20
you request, at least at this point.

relief yo
ND
18
IE
FR
MR. POCHODA:
I understand.
15:05:01
Just to clarify, I assume
you would be looking to enforce that order if, for example, the
yo
2
23
MCSO representatives did not speak truthfully to the monitor.
24
For example, paragraph --
25
15:04:42
OF
TH
talking about and what I indicated

ndicated last week was I'm talking
22
15:04:31
What I'm
13
21
15:04:14
If the position
sition of
f
OG
THE COURT:
11
And it's clear that by it's very nature, any remedial
THE COURT:
Oh, absolutely.
15:05:14

MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
49
-- paragraph 145 requires --
Absolutely.
If they don't speak
truthfully to the monitor, if I find they're withholding
information from the monitor, and I'm not saying you would
d do
any such thing, if I find that, they're in huge contempt

mpt of
o my
order --
.C
OM
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
MR. POCHODA:
15:05:23
Okay.
THE COURT:
-- compulsory power of
court.
f the
t
th
11
MR. POCHODA:
OG
10
Again, we --
BO
-- and I will use the --
15:05:28
-- obviously
to your position,
usly
sly defer
er t
Your Honor, but we did make clear that

we didn't in any way try
t
13
to dictate what the response

onse
se would be by the representative, we
14
didn't expect it to be
e a command
comman person, necessarily, but
15
someone who had information

nf mation
nfo
ion so that the community advisory
16
boards in particular
were more productive.
ticular wer
OF
TH
EF
12
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
17
All right.
15:05:44
Now, on one -- your suggested
change on
n 114C,
114C
114
C you know, I'm not saying that the monitor can't
19
report
at a meeting, but I'm reluctant to compel
port such
uch things
t
20
him to
to.
.
21
at a community meeting and he believes that it's not

an issue
is
iss
22
wise to directly raise that issue with the MCSO, but to

wi
ND
18
15:06:07
FR
IE
It
I seems to me that if the monitor becomes apprised of
2
23
otherwise investigate it without raising it with the MCSO, and
24
if it takes more than four months to raise it with the MCSO and
25
fully investigate it, I'm not going to compel him to raise it
15:06:28

at the next community meeting.
So he may choose to do so, and
I'm not saying he can't, but I'm not going to include your
requested language in that respect in the order.
Do you understand where I'm coming from?
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
15:06:42
Do you want to say anything about

bout that
that,
I do, Your Honor.
.C
OM
50
Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
No, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Let me ask, Mr. Pochoda,

you've
said that
choda,
choda
, you
ou'
BO
the open meeting law has to apply to

o the CAB.
CAB
AB.
.
11
to suggest that I think that the CAB has

s to or necessarily
12
should operate in secret.
13
want to hold a confidential

meeting, and the simple fact of the
ial
l meeting
14
matter is there is no open meeting

law, unless you can give me
meet
meeti
15
authority to the oth

otherwise
-- to the contrary, that applies to
ot
wise
se -
16
the CAB.
OG
10
And I don't mean
I swore
Chief Warshaw as my -- as the agent of the Court for
e in
i Chi
19
purposes
of being
a monitor.
rpos
rposes
b
20
applies to court agencies; there is no state law that applies
21
agencies.
to court
co
cou
22
compliance with the law, but I am aware of no law that requires

com
co
FR
IE
ND
18
24
25
15:07:12
OF
TH
EF
But
may be times when they
ut ther
there ma
You
know,
o know
kn
, I have told you, I told you a while ago that
17
2
23
15:06:55
And there is no federal law that

15:07:29
And so if -- I certainly want to be in
the CAB to operate in public.

This is, under the revision, not something in which
Sheriff Arpaio or the MCSO's going to participate.
They desire
15:07:46

affirmatively to opt out.
all.
applies.
51
They're not going to be involved at
And so I don't think there's any -- anything that
.C
OM
So can you tell me what law you think applies?

MR. POCHODA:
I can't, Your Honor, and it was put

t in
here under -- for the sake of caution that if there were,

re,
, it
was not any -- an indication that there were some, but we

w were
w
wer
concerned that if one existed, that it should be consiste

consistent
with that law.
BO
I admit that in terms of trying

g to get the
th inputs to
t
you in a timely fashion, we did not do research

to see if there
re ear
researc
11
was anyone we could point to, and

intent
of this phrase was
d the inten
nt
12
that if there were any open meeting laws

law that applied, the
13
decision to hold the meeting

ting
ng had
ha to be consistent with those.
14
If there aren't, we certainly

expect that -- that they
ertainl would
w
wo
15
would not have to be

b open.
pen
n.
TH
point?
Mr. Casey, do you want to be heard on this

Mr
MR.
CASEY:
MR
R. C
E
Well, Your Honor, my clients' objections
18
THE COURT
COURT:
:
15:08:39
OF
16
are
previously stated, but it appears to me whether there is an
e previousl
20
law or not, this courtroom is open to the public.

open meeting
meeti
21
people here.
We have
ha
hav
22
governmental -- this is quasi-governmental because it is under

go
IE
ND
19
FR
15:08:19
EF
OG
10
17
15:08:03
15:08:50
When light shines on anything that is
2
23
your creation.
It appears to me that there is a public good
24
that is served by having that body created by this Court open
25
to the public whether or not we can, as counsel, cite to the
15:09:11

52
Court a specific statute.

Sunshine, as our Arizona law says, is good for
government; it's good for wholesome discussion.
frankly, if they're going to hold a meeting, it's under -- it

it's
being created by the Court, it ought to be done in public.

blic
c.
THE COURT:
15:09:30
I certainly generally agree, but it does

o
I think, quite
te
.C
OM
seem to me that there are people who might want

t to issue
complaints that would be intimidated from doing so if

i they felt
like they were being monitored and observed

rved by the
th people
BO
they're complaining about, and so in

circumstances
n those
thos rare
ra
rar
11
where such a meeting is appropriate

held in private, I'm
iate
ate to be h
12
going to authorize the CAB to

o hold such meetings in private,
13
unless you can give me any

authority that suggests I can't do
ny authorit
14
it.
15:09:46
TH
EF
OG
10
MR. CASEY:
Y:
Your
-our
r Honor
H
Ho
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
And I've got a lot of authority that
15:10:00
OF
15
suggests, q
quite
frankly,
that that's exactly what should be
ite
te frank
a
18
done in
situation; I can cite you some cases if
n a monitoring
moni
monit
19
you
want.
u want
wa
.
ND
17
MR. CASEY:
M
20
No, sir.
I don't doubt that you have that
authority and I don't have any other authority, but it seems to

author
autho
22
me that we have a provision in the order for increased
FR
IE
21
15:10:09
2
23
reporting of complaints directly to MCSO, now you have a system
24
in which you're going to have your monitor now take complaints,
25
and so if the genesis or the motivation behind having a private
15:10:27

meeting is to allow people that are sensitive to my clients
watching them do a complaint, I'm not sure that that fully
exists, especially if the whole idea is the monitor can take
complaints then.
THE COURT:
.C
OM
Well, you certainly wouldn't be a good

oo
lawyer if you had -- if you didn't have confidence in your

yo
client, and you've done a fine job of representing

ting his
position.
client deserves confidence, but with all

I'm not
l due respect,
resp
respe
15:10:43
BO
But with all due respect, and it may be that

your
t
tha
going to require any of the possible

complainants of the
e complaina
complain
11
community to operate under that assumption

assumption.
assumptio
15:10:59
Now, let's
with -- as it pertains to
t's deal
dea wi
EF
All right.
OG
10
12
53
the required reevaluation,

know,
n, you know
now I'm not going to require
14
that the monitor reevaluate

after
a year's time, because it
aluate afte
ft
15
seems to me if he co
comes
and says, look, we full -- if
c
s forward
for
forw
16
he comes forward
a month two and says, We fully
ard after
aft
17
advertised these
We held it at a convenient time and
hese
es meetings,
me
meet
18
a convenient
place and nobody came, I'm not going to require
enient
nient pl
p
19
that
at
t to
t be a year before I knock them off.
15:11:18
ND
OF
TH
13
On the other hand, it may be that during the course of

O
20
year the monitor determines that it took that long to have

the ye
th
y
22
the community come and provide valuable information or receive

th
FR
IE
21
15:11:34
2
23
valuable information and so I'm not going to prevent either one
24
of you from acting as you deem fit, and I'm not going to impose
25
a specific time schedule in which that reevaluation must occur.
15:11:54

54
But the monitor will be open to your suggestions and he will be
available to receive them, and, you know, we're certainly not
going to hold these community meetings in private, so you'll
all be aware of the facts of what happens there and move
forward with that.
.C
OM
15:12:12
Now let's deal with the MCSO's objection.
MR. POCHODA:
Your Honor, if I may, just

ust briefly on
that, we aren't -- have no problem with that.

t.
say that we would distinguish between the

community advisory
he communit
communi
10
board meetings and the community meetings,

etings, and
etings
an we think that
11
there's significant positives that

out
of the meeting that
at come
co
o
12
is between basically the community

board and the
munity advisory
advi
13
monitor, because the community

board will be taking it
munity
nity advisory
advi
dvi
14
upon themselves to get

meetings from the
et
t inputs
input between
b
be
15
community.
OG
15:12:42
OF
Right.
Rig
MR.
R POCHODA:
POCHOD
POCHODA
17
So that can't be judged by who -- the
numbers
turn out.
s that t
THE COURT:
ND
19
I know.
But that -- the provisions that
pertain to the community advisory board are separate from the
21
provisions that pertain to the community meetings, public

provis
provi
22
community meetings.
com
co
FR
IE
20
2
23
15:12:24
EF
TH
THE COURT
COURT:
:
16
18
I did
d want to
BO
15:12:48
That's why I didn't want to mix them up as
you have done.
24
MR. POCHODA:
25
THE COURT:
Thank you.
They're very separate.
They have
15:13:02

different meaning.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
.C
OM
As it pertains to defendants' objection on
paragraph 109, which is something about public trust, what

t is
it, Mr. Casey?
I'm sorry.
THE COURT:
Is that the one about the monitor

itor
I didn't bring it, Your
r Honor
Honor.
.
I have 109, I'll read it:

it
Monitor
shall
Monito
i
BO
reporting?
8
9
15:13:22
MR. CASEY:
6
7
55
hold a public meet -- oh, no -- shall hold

meeting on
old a public
publ
publi
the east side of Maricopa County -- we
already talked -- oh,
we've
ve alre
alr
11
I've got the plaintiffs' suggestions,

those I didn't opt
tions
ions,
, and
nd t
12
for.
OG
10
EF
I'm sorry, let me get to my

y own.
o .
own
Monitor shall hold

old
d a public
publi meeting in each of MCSO's
13
patrol districts within

in 180
80 days
ay of the issuance of this
15
amendment to the ord

order in
or
n at
a least three -- I'm going to say
16
"one to three" -- in each

eac district annually thereafter.
17
meeting shall
under the direction of the monitor and/or
a l be
b held
e
18
his designee.
signee
gnee.
.
19
members
mbers
ber of the
th policy changes or other significant actions that
20
has taken to implement the provisions of this order.

the MCSO h
21
Summaries of audits and reports completed by the MCSO shall be

Summar
Summa
22
provided.
pr
OF
TH
14
15:14:03
The
These
meetings shall be used to inform community
h
ND
IE
FR
15:13:35
15:14:15
The monitor shall clarify for the public at these
2
23
meetings that the MCSO lacks the authority to enforce
24
immigration laws, except to the extent that it is enforcing
25
Arizona and federal criminal laws.
15:14:30

Any objection to that, Mr. Casey?
MR. CASEY:
The same objections I asserted earlier,
Your Honor.
All right.
.C
OM
56
THE COURT:
Thank you.
110, you've made objections to language in there

ere
e
saying that the monitor shall listen to community members'

member '
members
experiences and concerns about MCSO practices implementing

implementin this
order, including the impact on public trust.

.
BO
Well, why in the world can't the

he monitor take
complaints from the -- that pertain to this or

order that detract
o
11
from the public trust?
12
thinks that you're not implementing

menting the order, that impacts
13
public trust, doesn't it?
In other words
words,
word
, if
i a community member
TH
Your Honor,
You
Honor I understand your position.
Our objection is it is too

and it doesn't assure the
oo broad
b
16
compliance of these defe

defendants with federal law.
17
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
All right.
MR.
MR
R. CASEY:
C E
So it's just the same objection, Your
18
ND
Honor.
nor
or.
THE COURT:
T
21
Paragraph 111.
IE
20
FR
15:15:17
OF
15
22
15:14:59
EF
MR. CASEY:
14
OG
10
19
15:14:37
All right.
Thank you.
15:15:29
You know, with all due respect,
Mr. Casey, it seems to me that your objection is trying to

Mr
2
23
rewrite what the order says.
I'm making it clear you don't
24
have to attend any such meetings and no sanctions are going to
25
follow from your failure to attend the meetings alone.
But it
15:15:45

is perfectly legitimate for me to receive a report whether or
not you were requested to attend the meetings and you don't,
because for one thing, it may impact on my ability and
determination as to whether the monitor needs to continue to

o
hold these meetings, and that is the basis of my order.

.
.C
OM
57
15:16:05
I think I might, in light of the consideration

ation that
a
you've raised, change the language to say the following:

following
The
defendants are under no obligation to attend

meetings, but
d such
suc meet
me
to the extent they do not attend such meetings

after being
eetings aft
af
BO
requested by the monitor to do so, the

he monitor
monito "may" -- instead
11
of "shall" -- report their absence

public and shall
ce to the
he p
12
report their absence to the Court,

Court, for the reasons I've
13
indicated.
MR. CASEY:
Honor, that change is -- we would

Your Honor
You
TH
14
welcome that, but I also

wanted -- I do not waive my underlying
so wan
wa
16
objection that
I've
t I'
I
ve been asserting here.
17
the Court said,

because
we did read that very differently than
s id
d, becau
c
18
the explanation
that you provided.
planation
anatio t
ND
S
OF
15
19
very
ry clear.
clear
And I appreciate what
Your explanation makes it
All right.
Now, just to make sure that
understand, as I've indicated -- well, I don't think that

you un
yo
u
22
really pertains.
re
FR
IE
21
15:16:52
It has to do with misstatements that you make
2
23
in public as opposed to nonattendance, and I've already -- I
24
think I've made my position clear on that.
25
15:16:34
Thank you.
THE COURT:
T
20
15:16:20
EF
OG
10
Paragraph 115, you have objected to the community
15:17:10

58
trust language.
Let me just say that I don't think that the
community trust language, to the extent it applies to the trust
in what the monitor is doing, is without the scope of my order,

r,
especially when the monitor now has to assume the expense and
nd
the function of doing the community meetings and the community

munity
advisory board.
necessarily the monitor's job, unfortunately, to increase
community trust in the MCSO, and the MCSO has

as decided
decide to opt
out completely from this order.
.C
OM
BO
But I do take your point that it's

s not
I think I can leave the "increased

trust
ncreased community
co
c
OG
10
and" language in there, but if you

you're
ou're
re more
or comfortable, I'll be
12
happy to delete the phrase "increased

trust and" so
increased community
increas
c
13
long as you understand that

hat
t as far
ar as it pertains to the
14
community trust in what

monitor's
doing, I believe the
at the
he moni
on
15
monitor has full authority

to do whatever is needed to increase
au
auth
rity
ty t
16
the trust in what he

but not in what you're doing.
he's doing,
d
TH
I understand the Court, I agree with the
ND
S
changes
you just proposed, but I do not waive the
s that yo
y
underlying
objections, Your Honor.
derlying ob
THE COURT:
T
21
Mr. Pochoda, do you want to be heard on that?
22
MR. POCHODA:
IE
20
FR
15:18:11
OF
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
17
19
15:17:55
EF
11
18
15:17:35
That's fine.
15:18:27
Well, we continue our response to that
2
23
objection that this entire section is clearly within the
24
remedial powers of the board of this Court, has been used in
25
other cases.
Defendants have not come up with any case before
15:18:41

59
this trial court or in their appellate brief that indicate that
this would be beyond the scope, nor any First Amendment
violations in this remedial setting, so we think this
nitpickiness is -- does not make sense.

THE COURT:
I appreciate that.
.C
OM
This is unique
ue in
i many
an
ways, including mostly there's consent orders, because

ause the
t
agency involved wants to cooperate and this not

t a consent
order.
MR. POCHODA:
BO
Most, but not all,

Honor.
l, Your Hon
Ho
10
THE COURT:
Yeah.
11
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, I --
12
THE COURT:
-- please,
other matters, but I'll
se,
se
, I have
h
Mr. Casey
ey --
OG
15:19:09
EF
13
hear from you.

MR. CASEY:
pass,
Honor.
I pass
ss, Your
Yo
You
15
THE COURT:
T:
right.
All rig
ri
TH
14
Now, Mr. Casey, again, in good
faith you've indicated

to
indicat
t me that you think you can implement
17
training within
days after the monitor and the Court
i hin
in 120
0 d
18
approve
and the instructors.
e the curriculum
cu i
MR CASEY:
MR.
ND
19
Your Honor, I need to interrupt you.
I'm
defer on this to Mr. Williams in my office.

going to d
THE COURT:
22
MR. WILLIAMS:
IE
21
FR
15:19:15
OF
16
20
15:18:58
All right.
15:19:32
Mr. Williams.
And, Your Honor, yes, that is correct.
2
23
THE COURT:
All right.
I appreciate that.
24
Let me tell you my biggest concern.
25
today that it is widespread -- and I realize that I am
We've just heard

15:19:45

60
characterizing Chief Trombi's words, so whatever he said, he
said -- but in any case, he indicated that it's widespread a
fundamental misunderstanding about this Court's order and,
frankly, a dismissal of it as being petty and ridiculous when,

when
en,
in fact, it was extremely wide ranging and cuts to, from

om my
m
perspective, almost every aspect of MCSO's external

l operations,
operation
and yet we've been here now 10 months, almost, from when I
entered those findings of fact and conclusions

and up
ons of
o law,
law
a
until last week there was apparently a very widesp

widespread
wides
.C
OM
BO
misunderstanding and complete mischaracterization

of this
aracterizat
racteriza
11
Court's order within the MCSO.
OG
10
EF
week somebody sent me Sheriff

Arpaio's campaign fund-raising
eriff
iff Arpai
14
brochure that was sent

Wednesday saying people -- that
t out on We
W
15
he was being wrongfully

accused of racial profiling.
gf
gful
y accu
acc
16
with Chief Trombi,

want to be careful and say that the
ombi,
ombi
, I wan
17
Maricopa Co
County
Sheriff's
Office has used race -- has
nty
ty Sheri
e
18
illegitimately
timately
mately used race as a factor, and to the extent that
Again, as
15:20:54
DS
OF
TH
13
20
15:20:32
I also want to tell you,

disclosure, that last
yo , in
you
i full
fu
12
19
15:20:07
constitutes
racial profiling, that's what it is and that's what
nstitutes
stitutes r
and the sheriff is saying that people have wrongfully

I found an
accused him of that as of last Wednesday, which was after the
accuse
accus
22
meeting in which he was here.

me
RI
21
15:21:14
2
23
So to the extent that I have a sheriff, who I'm not
24
going to prohibit from mischaracterizing my order publicly, to
25
the extent that I have an MCSO that is rife with a
15:21:28

misunderstanding of my order and a mischaracterization of it
when they are the people that have to understand it and
implement it, I have grave concerns about who provides the
training.
.C
OM
Do you understand what those concerns are?
MR. WILLIAMS:
THE COURT:
15:21:48
Yes, I do, Your Honor.
61
And so I guess I want to say I appreciate

appre
the good faith of you saying that you can get

training
done
et the
th trai
r
within 120 days -- I want to hear from Mr.

Mr. Pochoda
Pochod whether
BO
that's adequate -- of the approval of

materials
f the
he training
tra
trai
11
and the instructors.
OG
10
15:22:06
EF
But first off, I want

what kind of progress
nt to know
k
12
13
we're making.
I realize that
hasn't approved those
hat the monitor
m
14
things yet.
15
things, because I'm

'm
m going
g ing
g to
t make sure that they're absolutely
16
accurate; and that the

instructors
have integrity; and at this
t
i
17
point I'm thinking,

t inking
nking,
, and it may be that you're searching for
18
such people,
who are not part of the MCSO, where
eople
ople,
, instructors
i t
19
there
already an apparently very wide ranging misconception
ere
re is alre
20
misunderstanding
of my order.
and misund
mis
und
15:22:22
So do you want to address that for me, please?
22
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, may I approach the --
2
23
THE COURT:
You may.
24
MR. CASEY:
Mr. Williams will address the specifics.
25
I think the concern the Court -- we may -- we may
IE
21
FR
ND
OF
TH
And frankly,
monitor
has to approve those
nkly
kly, the
t
m
mo
15:22:41
15:22:57

62
disagree with your characterization, but it's the Court's
characterization that is the important characterization, and I
understand that -THE COURT:
4
5
I'll just interrupt you.
then I'll try not to interrupt you again.
.C
OM
I'm sorry.
And
An
15:23:09
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Part of my concern is the length of

f time
that this matter's gone on.
And I think I, in good faith,

and
fa
in respect, tried to allow you to arrive

decree.
e at a consent
cons
on
BO
I think one of the things Chief Trombi

about in the
mbi was
wa honest
ho
hon
11
community meeting is the Sheriff's

s Office used the consent
12
decree to fund a lot of stuff

was necessary it
f that it thought
t
13
previously hadn't been able

ble
e to get
et funded.
15:23:22
EF
OG
10
So I realize that you

used that, you're trying to
y
TH
14
improve the quality

I'm not concerned about the
ty of policing,
polic
oli
16
expense so much,
this has been an awful long time for,
ch,
ch
, but thi
17
frankly, somebody
like Chief Trombi never even to have read my
o ebody
bo
l
lik
18
order and
nd not even to understand its basis.
19
time
goes on is par -- without the correction and
me
e that goe
20
appropriate instruction is also a very great concern that I

appropriat
21
have.
have.
15:23:36
And the length of
EN
D
OF
15
RI
22
15:23:55
Now -MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, your concern is -- this is not
2
23
placating -- it's legitimate and it's understandable.
I think
24
Chief Trombi, to his credit, said the word "ashamedly" several
25
times.
15:24:13

1
2
THE COURT:
63
And let me say that I appreciate his
efforts -MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
THE COURT:
-- to believe truthful.
MR. CASEY:
There is -- you know, what I was thinking

thinking,
inking,
.C
OM
Your Honor, is unquestionably we have an issue, and

I've
d I
've
ve told
o
you several times from talking to my clients about

bout their
willingness, their intent, and I absolutely

that
y can represent
repres
r
they have a good faith intent to comply with the l

letter and the
10
spirit, but everything that you have

e mentioned
mentione is a legitimate,
11
objective concern.
13
BO
OG
One of the things that

addressed last week, and I
hat we addr
hope we're not in front of you ever
every other week or so -THE COURT:
that more than I do -Nobody hopes

hope
op
15
MR. CASEY:
Y:
I'm
'm sure.
su
sur
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
-- Mr. Casey.
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
-- is that one of the things we've got to
OF
19
that
at
t and
a
have a version that's very well close that we want to
20
circulate to our client, to Mr. Pochoda and his team, and to
21
monitor.
the mo
th
m
15:25:08
THE COURT:
Let me just ask in --
FR
One of the things that --
22
2
23
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
24
THE COURT:
-- that respect, does the corrective
25
15:24:55
do is a corrective
summary, and defense counsel are working on
correc
IE
ND
S
18
TH
14
17
15:24:39
EF
12
15:24:19
summary indicate what areas in which the sheriff has appealed
15:25:18

64
and what areas in which the sheriff has not appealed my order?
MR. CASEY:
Not yet, but I'm recommending -- I'm going
to -- here's what I would suggest, Your Honor, is that that
corrective action, that we need to have something where a
certain level is ordered internally and we are going to

o
recommend that internally the order is read.
there's no more reasons not to read it if you're

re in a position
pos
of command authority.
that everyone in the MCSO gets the summary

ary that
tha defense
d
de
.C
OM
15:25:36
No more
-ore -
BO
You've read it from top to

t bottom.
bott
o
And
counsel, Mr. Pochoda, has approved, the

monitor and the Court
th monito
monit
11
has approved.
OG
10
And internally I am confident

that Chief Sheridan will
confid
EF
12
order his people that they

ey have to read it, because, to tell
14
you the truth, and I will

Trombi will tell you, he
wil --- Chief
Ch
Chi
15
doesn't want to come

om in
ome
n here
her and tell you, I'm a horse's patoot
16
because I didn't
it, but he knows that that shouldn't have
n't
t read
rea it
17
happened.
18
and I won
won't
you with the detail, I think rather
n't
t bother
bo
19
innocently,
it's like the old circle of the story about people
nocently, i
nocently
20
in a circle.
circl
21
around, the light is fuchsia or purple.

it goes
go
goe
22
how it happened, because we had testimony at trial when Brian

ho
15:26:14
OF
TH
13
So
to make these changes because somehow,
o we
w have
a
ND
IE
FR
15:25:56
You tell them the light is red, and by the time
15:26:31
I think that's
2
23
Sands was here and people, the 14 seconds is a -- is a fiction.
24
The only testimony with "14" in it is Ralph Taylor's 14 seconds
25
long -- 14 percent longer traffic stops for Hispanics.
15:26:54

THE COURT:
Yeah.
And I did --
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
So --
THE COURT:
It wasn't a big part of my order.
MR. CASEY:
It was not.
.C
OM
65
It was not part of your
order, but that was the only evidence that was in there,
I
e, and
a
will tell you as to the two, these aren't excuses, but I think
thin
hin
it understands how the circle goes -THE COURT:
Let me just interrupt you again

again.
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
10
THE COURT:
I told you I wouldn't

ouldn't do this.
ouldn
OG
BO
I want to
make something clear.
12
with documents early on in --
13
MR. CASEY:
Yes,
, sir
sir.
.
14
THE COURT:
-case.
- this
his cas
ca
15
MR. CASEY:
Y:
Yes,
sir.
es, si
s
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
The destruction of documents that,
15:27:18
I mean, you
we had a huge issue
ou remember
rememb
TH
EF
11
OF
15:27:27
17
frankly, yo
you had
your client to maintain and they
ha ordered
orde
r
18
weren't
maintained.
t mainta
19
even
en
n know if I mentioned it in my order that the documents were
20
destroyed and I could have drawn an adverse inference from
21
that.
that.
I didn't even rely very much -- I don't
EN
D
RI
22
15:27:05
15:27:41
In my order I also determined that you were in
2
23
violation of the preliminary injunction that was in case -- in
24
place for 18 months before I even issued my ruling.
25
understand that it is conceivable that, as Chief Deputy
I
15:27:59

66
MacIntyre said when he fell on his sword, it was his fault.
understand that it is conceivable that it was somebody else's
fault that my preliminary injunction was never fully
implemented.
innocent explanation.
of my rope, in light of the history of this case, and there
will be appropriate measures to ensure and compel

pel compliance
complia
with my orders despite good faith noncompliance.

iance
ance.
.
.C
OM
But at this point I don't care whether there's

e's an
15:28:17
MR. CASEY:
BO
If my order is violated, I am at
t the
th end
en
Your Honor, I could

d tell you
ou as counsel
that that is a consummately reasonable

at this point.
ble
le position
positi
positio
11
Now, we will come before you and we

anything and
w will defend
de
12
offer what we think is exculpatory

appropriate.
patory or a
13
goal here is not to come before

efore you and ever force you to use
14
those -- I think you used

weeks
ago "coercive powers."
use two
t
w
we
15
No one wants that.

.
16
it.
17
more excuses.
e
TH
EF
OG
10
My clien
clients
don't want it.
lie
OF
You have that authority.

a
autho
15:28:37
But the
You don't want
15:29:04
There has been -- there are no
It has
to get done.
h
As
s a former athlete, it doesn't make a difference how
hard
rd
d you try on the field:
20
either win or we lose.
21
of the
th matter is is when people aren't reading things and
22
there's mischaracterization, even though it's innocent and

th
2
23
there are explanations for it, and I personally, you know,
24
evaluate, Is there bad faith? -- because that has to stop --
25
and I determine it's good faith and innocent, nonetheless,
You either win or you lose.
Now we have to perform.
We
And the fact
15:29:21
IE
ND
19
FR
18
15:29:40

67
whether it's good faith or innocent, it stops.

The issue is when you have an institution, whether
it's General Motors, Ford, or a smaller one but still large
like the MCSO, there is a bureaucracy and there's a difference,

rence
nc ,
there's a difficulty because of the size.
of it.
this.
wants to do this.
we're trying to do is figure out:
.C
OM
I think that's
t's
s part
rt
No more of
But my clients understand, it changes.
15:29:58
We understand you're at the end of the rope.

rope
BO
You don't want to be back

here.
k her
here
.
one
No o
N
So what
How do we make sure that
this nonsense about 14 percent is gone,

one,
one
, or
o 14 seconds is
11
gone --
15:30:19
OG
10
THE COURT:
And two --
13
MR. CASEY:
All those
things.
hose thin
hin
14
THE COURT:
-- or
r three
re officers --
15
MR. CASEY:
Y:
I mean
ean --
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
-- when it was --
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
Yeah.
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
-- the sheriff and others themselves.
TH
EF
12
OF
15:30:28
17
18
MR CASEY:
MR.
Yeah.
They're all -- and I won't spend my
time, there
time,
ther are explanations why I think that's how it got
21
around the water cooler that way.

aroun
22
know, people want to believe what they want to believe.

kn
2
23
the reality is you've made your orders, we respectfully
24
disagree with some of it, we understand that we have that
25
appeal, but the fact is --
IE
20
FR
ND
19
15:30:38
And I think, perhaps, you

But
15:30:51

THE COURT:
It's the law.
MR. CASEY:
-- it's the law.
Come heck or high water
it's the law.
And it's going to be complied with.
If I didn't
t
believe that, I wouldn't be up here representing that, but

t I
understand the proverbial proof is in the pudding.
has to produce now.
not.
.C
OM
My
y client
lient
We're either going to perform or we're

we e
BO
towards solving the problem with Dave Trombi

rombi today
toda and with the
chief deputy was the corrective action.
ion
on.
11
roll in a clarification.
12
for an order, I'm not asking that -- bu

but for our client that
13
it's mandatory that these

command level have to read
e guys at
t c
14
everything, and that the summary

summar that is going to be approved
15
by everyone has to
office/patrol-wide, sworn deputy
o be
b read
ad o
16
side -- I'm not

the detention, the officers there, but
ot talking
talk
17
the sworn d
deputy
-- so no one ever again says:
puty
ut side
i
18
read it;
that
t; and
nd t
t it is inexcusable to say:
19
told
ld
d to
t read it, but I didn't read it.
20
read it, to understand it.

duty to re
15:31:18
OF
TH
EF
I also think
thin -- and I'm not asking
ND
IE
FR
22
think we need to
I thi
th
OG
10
21
15:31:02
So what I'm saying with you is I think

first step
hink the fi
8
9
68
15:31:38
I didn't
I got it, I was
No more.
It's your job

15:32:05
I think we need to do that because your order is long
but it's clear.

bu
The summary we put together is still rather
2
23
long, but it's clear.
And we started that with Chief Trombi,
24
part of that summary, in helping him fully appreciate what was
25
in your order.
I think that is a real productive, tangible
15:32:21

tool to make sure that we're not before you again, and that
it's -- from here on out it's us, the plaintiffs and the
monitor, and the monitor reporting to the Court.
THE COURT:
didn't mean to interrupt you.
MR. CASEY:
I've waited until you -I'm long-winded.

ed.
ed
.
THE COURT:
15:32:37
No, I'm sorry.
apologize, Your Honor.
8
9
Let me ask you, and

nd I
What do you intend to do about

training?
ab
tr
BO
I appreciable that.
.C
OM
69
You can understand at this point I have zero confi

confidence that -conf
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
11
THE COURT:
-- an MCSO officer
whose sheriff is out
offi
w
who
OG
10
saying that my order is illegitimate

gitimat or mis -- wrongfully
gitimate
13
accuses him of something can

train officers about
an adequately
adequa
14
what really is in my order.

order.
TH
EF
12
MR. CASEY:
Y:
15
Two
responses.
wo res
re
First, I understand and
appreciate your
concern.
ur conc
concern
17
submit that's
too
broad
of a brush to paint a line deputy even
t
t
b
bro
18
at a -- like a lieutenant
level who might be doing training, by
i
19
saying
ying that
hat if
i Arpaio sends out through his private political
20
campaign something that says something, that might be protected
21
First Amendment.
22
influence it's going to have.

in
ND
IE
FR
15:33:05
The second thing is I respectfully
OF
16
2
23
15:32:48
15:33:24
Your concern is the trickle-down effect, the
I don't think it's fair to say that everyone in the
24
MCSO is going to be affected, maybe the Court would say
25
polluted by that, and that therefore MCSO is excluded from
15:33:41

that.
I understand the Court's concern.
valid one.
it's a large organization and you have a lot of people,
including the men there --
70
It's an objective,
.C
OM
But I wanted to say that I do not think because
THE COURT:
Let me ask a couple of questions.
MR. CASEY:
-- they're professionals.
THE COURT:
All right.
MR. CASEY:
They're not political.
THE COURT:
And let me just say,

y, I am not
no assuming
BO
15:33:55
that -- and I'm not trying to paint with a broad

brush.
br
bro
11
believe that there are many professionals,

fessionals
essionals, doubtless, within
12
the MCSO who try their very best to do a good job for the
13
people of this county.
14
them.
15
Sheriff Arpaio is the

spokesperson
for the MCSO and he makes
th spokes
oke
16
policy --
15:34:02
EF
OG
10
enable them and not disable

I want to
o e
15:34:23
OF
TH
But you stipulated,

lated
ated, and
d I think its beyond cavil, that
17
He does.
COURT:
THE
HE C
R
-- for the MCSO, and, in fact, we're going
18
MR.
R CASEY:
CA
CASEY
:
to discuss th
this in a minute, if I'm enjoining anybody, or if
20
I'm using the coercive powers of this court, it's Sheriff

I'm
21
Arpaio, who is a legitimate party to this suit, over whom I

Arpaio
Arpai
22
exercise those powers.

ex
15:34:35
FR
IE
ND
19
2
23
And so if he's out there raising funds or doing
24
whatever he's doing saying that the order is illegitimate or
25
makes wrong -- wrongful accusations, would you expect his
15:34:53

officers to ignore what he says?

MR. CASEY:
I was hoping that was rhetorical.
THE COURT:
It's not.
MR. CASEY:
Your Honor, I think the answer is there

h
2
not.
It's
.C
OM
71
are statements made in a political context that are

e not office
offic
fic
context, and I don't like even addressing -- your

question is
our questio
fair.
BO
(Off-the-record discussion between

and
ween Mr
Mr. Liddy
L
Li
Mr. Casey.)
MR. CASEY:
11
OG
10
15:35:35
I just had it pointed

pointe out that, for
example, and this might just,

it's worth, is that
, for what
w
13
Arpaio didn't say the Court

wrongfully accusing him
urt
t order was
w
14
but people were wrongfully

him.
gfully
fully accusing
accu
accus
TH
EF
12
THE COURT:
T:
That
hat
t is
i true.
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Okay.
Oka
THE
COURT:
H COURT
CO
:
And who do you suppose has said that in
OF
15
17
He said that.
15:35:45
And --
the most
st public
publi way over the last year?
18
15:35:09
MR CASEY:
MR.
EN
D
19
There's no question, Your Honor, that this
Court has made its findings, but all you have to do is walk
21
down to
t their old office building and have people up there that
22
are protesting, at least as of two hours ago, on various

ar
2
23
things, and you look at the Internet, and we can go back there
24
and find --
15:35:56
RI
20
25
THE COURT:
All right.
So you understand my concern?
15:36:13

MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
Let's just say this.
72
I want you to
know that as counsel, we talk with our folks to understand that
the political hat, with protected by First Amendment, can be
said, but at the same time the government act that you have
ve the
t
authority to use your coercive power on, that this, while

ile
e
protected, can spill over on how you're going to view

iew
compliance.
.C
OM
intend now to provide this training?

MR. CASEY:
11
12
of specifics; I think it will help direct

ct us
us.
.
Who
Wh do you
OG
10
Let
et me ask
k a couple
What I was suggesting

suggestin on the corrective
action was that it goes firm wide,

wide, the whole MCSO.
THE COURT:
I appreciate
corrective action, and -ppreciate
reciate the
t
14
MR. CASEY:
Yeah.
Yeah
Yea
.
15
THE COURT:
T:
-certainly that's an important step.

- cert
cer
16
MR. CASEY:
CASEY:
Yeah.
Yea
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
But I'm talking about the training that's
OF
TH
13
17
required
ed
d by the
th order.
19
training?
aini ?
aining
ND
MR. CASEY:
M
20
Who do you intend to provide that
To everyone that's in the order, and if I
15:37:07
THE COURT:
No, no, no, no.
FR
IE
remember correctly, I think it's all -rememb

remem
22
2
23
MR. CASEY:
-- sworn deputies.
24
THE COURT:
Not provided to; who do you intend to have
25
15:37:00
18
21
15:36:48
EF
Let me ask -- okay.
BO
THE COURT:
15:36:36
provide that training?
15:37:16

MR. CASEY:
1
2
Your Honor, I don't know if anyone else is
really prepared to speak.
I know that we had proposed Mr. --
THE COURT:
Mr. Liddy, do you know anything?
MR. LIDDY:
I volunteer to help with training, Your

our
r
Honor.
And he's a certified -- I forget

get what
wh
certification it is, but --
Well, I don't doubt that

has
at Mr.
Mr Liddy
Li
Lidd
BO
THE COURT:
passed a bar.
MR. CASEY:
10
No, no, no.
Actually,
ctually, he
ctually
h actually had law
OG
15:37:34
MR. CASEY:
6
7
.C
OM
73
enforcement cer -- you have to get

training to be
et some
so
t
tra
12
certified --
EF
11
15:37:40
THE COURT:
Well
-l -
14
MR. CASEY:
-Arizona
POST -- by
y Arizo
iz
15
THE COURT:
T:
right.
All rig
ri
TH
13
I'll tell you what I'm going
to do.
I'm going
oing to make
mak it clear in this meeting, and I'm
17
going to make
it
why, that not only does the training
a
i clear
clea
l
18
have to
by the monitor, but who provides it has to
o be
b approved
app
appr
19
be approved by
b the monitor.
20
give me a schedule of the training and I'm going to show up
21
unannounced at that training and I'm going to make sure that

unanno
unann
22
there isn't any sort of baloney going on, even assuming that
th
And I'm going to require you to

15:37:59
FR
IE
ND
OF
16
15:37:47
2
23
the monitor approves it.
24
Are we clear on that?
25
MR. CASEY:
Very clear.
15:38:18

THE COURT:
All right.
And how long is it going to --
has the monitor requested these materials yet, do you know,
Mr. Liddy?
MR. WILLIAMS:
.C
OM
74
Yes, Your Honor, he has requested them

them,
he ,
and that's part of the -- we had sent training materials

ls
already, and then I believe we're sending them again.

in.
in
.
monitor essentially requested that we resend everything

we'd
verything w
previously sent together so they have it in one shot

shot,
t, so that's
going out tomorrow.
10
THE COURT:
BO
The
T
12
MR. WILLIAMS:
We had
ad done that
tha at some earlier point,
Your Honor, and then I believe

elieve
ieve there
ther
her was some disagreement as
14
to certain --
TH
13
THE COURT:
T:
15
Well,
I'm going to ask that you come to
Well
l, I
agreement and you provid

provide that proposal to the monitor, so that
pr
17
the monitor
it or otherwise.
r can
an approve
appr
p
OF
16
MR.
MR
R. WILLIAMS:
W L
18
THE COURT:
ND
19
15:38:45
All right?
Yes, Your Honor.
All right.
Anything else on this point,
Mr. Casey
Mr.
Casey?
MR. CASEY:
No, Your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
All right.
FR
15:38:56
21
2
23
MR. LIDDY:
Your Honor, I have one thing on this
24
point, if I may, Your Honor.
25
THE COURT:
IE
15:38:39
EF
provide that training?
OG
Have you indicated

ated who you
yo propose to
y
11
20
15:38:26
Sure.
Thank you.
15:39:00

MR. LIDDY:
75
Just to be clear that when I informed the
Court that I have -- my name has been submitted and
subsequently the Court said you might find it advisable to make

ke
sure no baloney's going on that the Court, being clear to
everyone here, that the Court doesn't suspect me --
.C
OM
THE COURT:
No.
MR. LIDDY:
-- of participating in baloney.
loney.
loney
.
THE COURT:
I do not -- I do not suspect

uspec you
yo at this
BO
point, Mr. Liddy, of participating in any

baloney.
ny baloney
MR. LIDDY:
I appreciate that,
Honor.
hat,
hat
, Your H
11
THE COURT:
Which does not mean that

I'm going to
th
OG
10
constrain the monitor to find

d you as
a an acceptable teacher at
13
this point.
14
judgment in the matter

use my own professional
r and I might
mi
mig
15
judgment, without int

intending
i
nding
ing to give you any slight whatsoever
16
or any implication
I believe you have been involved in
ation that
t
17
any, quote,
unquote,
, unquote
nquote, baloney.
18
approve
e you as an instructor.
OF
TH
I'm going to
o allow him to use his professional
Perfectly understandable, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT:
T
All right.
21
Do you want to be heard on this at all, Mr. Pochoda,
ND
IE
FR
2
23
15:39:32
Doesn't mean I'm going to
MR LIDDY:
MR.
19
15:39:18
EF
12
22
15:39:12
15:39:44
before we go on to the next point?

be
MR. POCHODA:
If I may defer to Cecillia Wang, who's
24
been the person on our -- plaintiffs' side that's been dealing
25
with this and with defendants.
I'm not sure where we stand on
15:39:53

dates or any of the other issues, but if Cecelia could be
heard.
Yes.
Good afternoon, Your Honor.
This is
s
I'll just speak very briefly on this.
I think
in
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
76
Cecillia Wang.
there are two points I want to address very concretely.

y.
15:40:07
The first is that plaintiffs share the Court's

urt's
urt
s concern
conce
n
6
7
that training happen expeditiously and that training

aining happen
happ
appropriately.
believe it is logistically possible for the traini

training to happen
train
BO
And the second point I want to make

m
is that we
much sooner than the defendants are indicating,

and should
indicatin
indicating
11
happen much sooner, even given all

that need to
ll the
th things
th
thin
12
happen, including the identification

and approval of
ficatio an
fication
13
appropriate trainers.
I want to make
ke it
t clear
ea that the defendants submitted
TH
14
proposed training ma
materials
m
rials
als and the identification of certain
16
proposed trainers
their December 31st submission to the
ners with
wi
t
17
Court.
18
great detail
and at some length shortly thereafter.
tail a
We began
and conferring with the defendants in
egan
ga meeting
me
meet
the meet and confer process in January.

We had
h
ND
19
15:40:48
OF
15
We
provided very detailed comments and suggestions and objections
21
to the
th content of their proposed lesson plans and to some of
22
the trainers, including Mr. Liddy.

th
IE
20
FR
15:40:29
EF
OG
10
15:41:10
We've apprised Chief
2
23
Warshaw and his team of the content of that meet and confer
24
process.
25
would take plaintiffs' objections and comments into
And my understanding is that MCSO indicated that they

15:41:33

77
consideration and would be revising their proposed material to
some extent, and I believe that those revised versions will be
provided to the monitor and to the plaintiffs by April 4th.
.C
OM
We obviously share the understanding that how quickly

ickly
kl
the training can actually be rolled out is going to be
triggered by when the monitor team is able to approve

ove the
th
materials and the instructors.
happens, 120 days is an unnecessary delay from

point
going
rom that
t
po
forward.
BO
We do think that
at whenever that
I think that the sending out of a correc

corrective
corre
statement is not sufficient to address

dire need for
ess
ss the
th dir
di
11
training on the three areas the Court has

as ordered.
OG
10
15:42:19
The issues are not just about

the erroneous statements
ab
EF
12
about the basis for the Court's

but also, very
Court
urt's
's findings,
fin
14
critically, about the MCSO deput

deputies' and supervisors' ongoing
depu
15
obligations to comply
with
the injunction and to comply with
mp
mply
th t
16
the Constitution.
ion.
ion
.
15:42:44
OF
TH
13
Our
u hope
ho
i that given the extensive meet and confer
is
17
that has
happened, that this training can actually be
as already
alrea
alread
19
rolled
much sooner than 120 days after the monitor's
lled
led out
ut mu
20
approval of the materials and the trainers.
ND
18
THE COURT:
22
MS. WANG:
IE
21
FR
15:41:55
15:43:01
All right.
With respect to what was originally in the
2
23
Court's order, two of the trainings were supposed to be
24
completed by March 31st and the third by May 30th, and our hope
25
is that we won't see much delay beyond that.
15:43:15

THE COURT:
78
Well, that's understandable, but, of
course, I think the original schedule was done in the rather
naive hope that the parties would be able to select a monitor,

,
and they weren't.
and be competent with the one I've chosen, so there is a little

littl
bit of a delay.
.C
OM
And so it took me a month to inform myself

self
lf
But let me propose this to you, Ms. Wang.

ang.
ang
.
I'm
I' going
g
to order Mr. Williams, in addition to providing

iding
ding who is going to
conduct the training, setting forth the training schedule

that
s
BO
they propose once the monitor has approved

pprove the
pproved
th trainers and the
11
training.
12
training schedule that you believe

elieve the MCSO could follow.
13
then if you can't arrive at

and the monitor enters
t an agreement
agre
gre
14
an order, it will come

e up to me
e and I'll make the decision
15
about how quickly the

training
will be provided.
th traini
ain
19
20
21
EF
TH
MS.
S WANG:
WA :
WANG
Yes,
Your Honor.
Y
15:44:05
That would be fine.
Thank you.
you
u.
THE COURT:
Mr. Williams, can you do that
expeditiously, please, sir?

expeditiou
MR. WILLIAMS:
15:44:13
I believe so, Your Honor.
Can you give
me some clarity as to what you mean by "schedule" --
FR
22
And
Is that
hat clear?
cle ?
clear
IE
ND
S
18
15:43:49
And I will invite you to submit

mi to the monitor the
OF
17
OG
10
16
15:43:32
2
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. WILLIAMS:
25
THE COURT:
I mean --- in terms of --
-- you now say:
I'll take 120 days.
15:44:20

79
Start with day 1 after the approval is received from the
monitor, and then lay out your time line of the amount of time
you believe will be necessary to train all the persons that are
re
required to be trained by my order, and any priority of
training that you would anticipate implementing in that

t
schedule.
can provide what she believes would be an alternately

rnately --
alternatively feasible schedule if you're unable

arrive at
nable to ar
agreement with her, and if you aren't able

arrive
at an
ble to arri
rr
Then
Ms.
n Ms
M
. Wang
n
BO
agreement, the monitor will make a rec

recommend
-- make a
ecommend
mmend -
11
decision, and if you wish to appeal

you can
peal
eal that decision
de
12
appeal it to me.
THE COURT:
T:
15
Honor, do you have a time line in

Your
ur Honor
TH
mind?
How
long is it going to take you to
ow lon
lo
OF
MR.
R WILLIAMS:
WILLIA
WILLIAMS
Well, obviously when have a bit on our
plate before
tomorrow to get out to the monitor, but I think we
fore t
19
can
n probably tackle it in the next 14 days for sure.
ND
18
THE COURT:
T
21
MR. WILLIAMS:
22
THE COURT:
How about seven?
Seven days.
Farnsworth saying you can do that.
25
time line in which you must reply?
All right.
15:45:10
Absolutely, Your Honor.
FR
IE
20
24
15:45:01
provide that?
17
2
23
15:44:52
EF
MR. WILLIAMS:
13
16
OG
10
14
15:44:36
You'll provide a copy to Ms. Wang.
.C
OM
Thank you.
I see Chief
Ms. Wang, do you want me to give you a

15:45:23

MS. WANG:
We can certainly reply within another seven
days after that, but I think we'll make every effort to do it
even sooner than that.

THE COURT:
All right.
.C
OM
80
So Mr. Williams' obligation

ion
n is
seven days from today's date, and your obligation to reply,

reply
ly, if
you have any dispute, is 14 days from today's date.

.
Everyone understand that?
MR. WILLIAMS:
MS. WANG:
All right.
BO
Yes, Your Honor.
Now,
w, I wanted
wante to take up a
OG
THE COURT:
10
Yes, Your Honor.
couple of other matters.
12
don't want to be revising my order very much.
13
might have to do -- do it
purposes.
t for supervisory
super
superv
14
don't want to do it.
15
and I want compliance.

an
ance
I realize that I
I still
TH
I want
an to make it clear for all parties
15:46:08
And so I did
yesterday the appeal filed by the
di read
re
OF
16
MCSO to the
of
e court
ou
o appeals.
18
saw what
at you're
you'
you
'r not appealing.
19
Ms. GilBride
GilBride's
GilBride'
' here and she can address this.
20
the MCSO's rights to appeal my order as it existed

infringe t
21
filed the appeal.

when you
y
IE
ND
17
FR
15:45:47
In the course
of
cour
o this, I thought I
EF
11
22
15:45:37
I saw what you are appealing, I

I appreciate that
I do not want to
15:46:27
I do want to avoid -- and one of the things
2
23
Chief Sheridan said in his newspaper article was that if my
24
injunction was wrong, nobody would reimburse the taxpayers for
25
all the money they have to spend in the interim.
And I agree,
15:46:44

81
I don't want to make the taxpayers expend money purposefully --
purposelessly, although that is not my major concern; I
recognize it is the sheriff's concern, but I think it's a
legitimate concern for me to consider.
.C
OM
I was -- I was surprised, because this has been

en a very
er
long case, and I realize it's not a major point of your appeal,
appea
p
but in the appeal you point out that this Court

t issued an
n order
that the MCSO is a jural entity and you're appealing saying
that it's not a jural entity.
BO
And the thought occ

occurred to me
oc
that it might be worth exploring with

whether
th
h the
he parties
par
part
11
there's any objection about a curative

rativ -rative
- well, I'm not even
12
sure that a curative order is

necessary, because of the nature
s necessary
neces
13
of the injunction.
14
does not and will not affect

affec the
th injunction going forward, even
15
if defendants are su
successful
s
essful
sfu on appeal, I thought I would
16
explore that with you

for a few minutes.
yo fo
15:47:20
EF
OG
10
15:47:38
OF
TH
But that
might agree that that
at the
th parties
pa
Mr.
me set forth a time line as I
r Casey,
Casey, let
l
17
understand
tand
an it,
it, and then, Ms. GilBride, if you want to address
19
the
Court,
e Court
, you
yo may do that.
20
because I think -because
Let me set forth a time line,

15:47:54
MR. CASEY:
Oh, for the appeal?
22
THE COURT:
No, no, no, no.
2
23
MR. CASEY:
Yes, sir.
24
THE COURT:
I think, and I may be wrong, Mr. Liddy may
IE
21
FR
ND
18
25
15:47:00
For this case.
have been involved with you, but I think that you were the only
15:48:02

person in this courtroom who was involved in this case in the
inception -- at the inception.
plaintiffs' counsel were, and I know it was in front of a
different judge.
82
.C
OM
I don't think any of
But at some point, it looks to me like in 2009,

9, you
y
did file -- well, this suit was originally filed against

gainst a
number of the defendants, but the M -- Maricopa

a County was
wa
a also
a party to this suit, and I believe you represented

presented
resented Maricopa
Ma
County and the MCSO at that point, is that

hat correct?
correc
correct
BO
10
MR. CASEY:
Correct.
11
THE COURT:
And then at some

when this was still
som point
oi
OG
15:48:31
with Judge Murguia, a motion was fi

filed that the MCSO ought to
13
be dismissed because they're

y're
re not
no a jural entity, the suit had
14
to be against Maricopa
pa
a County,
Count , and she pointed out that it was
County
15
unclear, but she was

to keep MCSO in the case.
wa going
ng t
16
the case was transferred

by Judge Murguia and it eventually
transfe
17
ended up with
me.
i h me
m
.
And then
15:48:48
OF
TH
EF
12
to me, and I'm not sure whether you still

It
t looks
lo
18
represented
Maricopa County at this point or not, or whether
presented M
20
just separately representing the MCSO -you were j
ND
19
MR. CASEY:
Separately represented, Your Honor.
22
THE COURT:
-- but Maricopa County arrived at a
IE
21
FR
15:48:14
2
23
stipulation they filed with the Court right after I entered the
24
case that said that they agreed with the plaintiffs that they
25
weren't a necessary party to this suit, and that they would be
15:49:02
15:49:17

83
dismissed, subject to them being renamed in the suit if it was
necessary to accomplish full relief, full and complete relief.
And as I recall, the sheriffs did not join in that stipulation

n
but they did not oppose it.
characterization?
Is that a correct
15:49:37
MR. CASEY:
I don't remember.
THE COURT:
Well, it's document 178.
look
Take a loo
oo and
BO
see if you think I'm wrong about that.
.C
OM
And then later on we got in a situation w

where in fact,
you had to withdraw, you and I had a discussion

about that
discussi
discussio
11
because the Maricopa County Sheriff's

moved to sanction
iff'
iff
's Office
Offic
ff
12
Maricopa County and asked that

sanction be imposed on
at a sancti
sa
13
Maricopa County in this suit,

you had represented
suit
it,
, and because
b
14
both, we both discussed

ed that
ha if Maricopa County wanted to
15
proceed with that,

, you
yo were
ere going to have to withdraw, in light
16
of your duty to Maricopa

County, and in fact, Maricopa County
Mari
17
Sheriff's Office
O fice
ic did
i pursue and I allowed them to pursue the
18
sanctions
sought against Maricopa County, and at that time you
ons
ns sough
soug
19
withdrew.
thdrew
hdr .
TH
OF
Yes, sir.
21
THE COURT:
And you reentered this case after I
FR
15:50:03
ND
MR. CASEY:
M
IE
20
22
15:49:48
EF
OG
10
15:50:19
ultimately denied MCSO's request to sanction Maricopa County,

ul
2
23
and I believe you -- you received an appropriate waiver from
24
Maricopa County allowing you to continue to represent this
25
court.
15:50:33

MR. CASEY:
Yes.
THE COURT:
When I filed the injunction here, and I
84
don't think you have to do this, but I don't recall you
pointing out the jural entity argument as an objection to the

he
injunction.
we might explore here that won't affect your appellate

late
jurisdiction, but Ms. GilBride, you let me know

w what you think
on that point.
.C
OM
BO
The first is since Maricopa County

stipulated to their
unty stipul
stipu
10
return to this case if it was necessary

full relief,
sary to
t achieve
ac
ach
11
and they aren't a party to this lawsuit,

conceivable to
lawsu , it's
lawsuit
it
12
the Court that I could reenter

require that pursuant to
er -- or
o re
13
the stipulation, Maricopa

a County
Count be returned as a party to this
14
suit, to the extent that

hat it is necessary to achieve full relief
15
in the injunction.
.
TH
15:51:23
Do you
on that one way or the other,
ou have a position
p
OF
16
Ms. GilBride?
d
MS.
MS
S. GILBRIDE:
G B
I don't think that's necessary, Your
18
Honor,
nor
or,
, because
becaus
ecaus Sheriff Arpaio is in the case in his official
20
capacity, and I think that -capacity,
21
THE COURT:
IE
ND
19
FR
22
25
15:51:33
You know, that -- that struck me as the
second point I was going to raise.

se
When I look at the order --
(Off-the-record discussion between the clerk and the
2
23
24
15:51:04
EF
OG
17
15:50:49
But it seems to me that there's two -- two

o things
Court.)
THE COURT:
You know, I'm sorry if the people on the
15:51:43

85
phone are going to get cut off, but if they're going to get cut
off, they're going to get cut off.
whole lot longer.
.C
OM
We aren't going to be a
I did look in the order at my definition -- I refer

fer
r to
the MCSO a lot in the injunctive relief order, but I looked

ooked
ke at
it, and I've got a definition section in the injunctive

ctive relief
relie
lie
order and I define MCSO.
Z.
County Sheriff's Office acting in his or

official capacity.
r her offic
offi
It's Title I, and it's

's Z, definition
defin
MCSO means the sheriff

iff of
o the
h Maricopa
BO
I entitle MCSO as:
So I don't think, as long as there i

isn't a dispute
is
11
that the sheriff is an appropriate

ate
te party to this suit, that
12
it's going to make any -- I mean,

intended, but
mea , no
mean
n disrespect
di
13
in terms of the practical

effect,
Ms. GilBride, there won't be
l effect
effec
, M
14
any difference in terms

practical effect even if you
ms of
f the p
15
prevail on your appeal,

pp
ppea
wil it?
will
16
MS. GILBRIDE:
GILBRID :
GILBRIDE
EF
TH
OF
THE
H COURT:
CO
COURT
:
MS.
MS
S. MCBRIDE:
M R
And the reason we raised it is so that
20
Since the courts had been in disagreement about it before, we
21
have no
n Ninth Circuit ruling on the issue, and that's why you
22
raised -ra
FR
we could
cou
have a Ninth Circuit ruling on the -- on the issue.
THE COURT:
15:52:36
All right.
19
2
23
15:52:21
You're correct.
IE
ND
S
18
OG
10
17
15:51:54
15:52:48
Well, in this cir -- you know, I do think
24
that there -- you cited the court of appeals opinion, it's kind
25
of interesting, but this also provoked -- this case has some
15:52:58

86
unusual factual elements when the MCSO moved to sanction the
Maricopa County in the course of the lawsuit itself.
interesting that they would be viewed as the same jural entity,

y,
but that's a matter for the appeal and the appeal can resolve
olve
ve
it.
effect on this order so that we're spending a lot of money th

that
will never have effect, and I take it that --
.C
OM
It's
MS. GILBRIDE:
THE COURT:
I fully agree.
All right.
BO
Thank you.
you
Mr. Pochoda, do you want to

o be heard on that point?
11
MR. POCHODA:
OG
10
13
youthful appearance, I was

since the amended complaint
as around s
14
was written and included

ded by me in
i 2007 and '8.
TH
EF
law, Your Honor, and I should

d state for the record despite my
THE COURT:
T:
right.
All rig
ri
I apologize to you,
Mr. Pochoda.
17
been around
of this case but not the initial
d for
or a lot
l
18
inception.
ion
n.
IE
ND
S
20
You'll
me because I wasn't around.
You'
You
'll excuse
exc
OF
16
19
15:53:45
I've
anything about which the parties now need

Is there
t
additional clarification?
21
MR. POCHODA:
22
MR. CASEY:
FR
15:53:31
No, we agree
is clearly the
gree that
t that
th
12
15
15:53:19
I just want to make sure that it won't have any practical

ctical
15:53:57
Not plaintiffs, Your Honor.
Not from the defendants, Your Honor, but I
2
23
was going to ask the Court and plaintiffs for, and the monitor,
24
for an extension of time from tomorrow until Monday to get the
25
monitor the requested materials.
We just need another time
15:54:13

because of some things in my office.

THE COURT:
2
3
When you say "requested materials," what
do you mean?
MR. CASEY:
MR. WILLIAMS:
.C
OM
Do you know the --
Your Honor, the monitor submitted

ted
d a
document request, I think about an 18-page document

t request
request,
and we're in the process of Bates stamping and reviewing all
those.
All right.
please, don't misunderstand me:
11
extensions any more.
I appreciate
courtesy.
ciate your
y
Your Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
right
TH
14
But
I'm
m not going
oin to give
EF
MR. CASEY:
12
You can
n have til
till Monday.
OG
10
BO
THE COURT:
15:54:28
13
87
15:54:38
Thank you,
I mean, if you have a good
reason and it's a really

reason you can raise it, I'm not
r
rea
ly good
go
goo
16
telling you you

but this case has gone on far too long.
ou can't,
can' , b
can't
15:54:46
OF
15
Now,
Mr.
I understand the reason why you
o
M . Pochoda,
Mr
P
Poc
17
asked me to just
enter an amended order that would incorporate
ju
jus
19
the
going to incorporate as a whole new order.
e changes I'm
I
ND
18
I'm not going to do that.

I
20
And the reason I'm not
going to do it is I want to make it clear, for purposes of the
22
MCSO's appeal, what my order was, and what the supplementary

MC
FR
IE
21
15:55:02
2
23
order was, so to the extent that they want to argue about
24
whether my supplementary order was enforcement of my original
25
order, they can make that argument with clarity.
15:55:20

Do you understand why I'm doing what I'm doing?
MR. POCHODA:
Yes, Your Honor.
88
We assumed that that
would be brought up.
both orders sort of in place, but we have no objections to

o that
th
method of proceeding.
I don't think it requires it, but it

will
i wil
make it very clear, and --
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
Fine, Your Honor.
BO
15:55:32
THE COURT:
We didn't think that required to have
.C
OM
-- and as I believe
I've
e I'
I
ve set
et forth on the
10
record, I believe there are reasons pertaining

pertainin to the
11
enforcement of my original order which

to this order, but to
whic go t
12
the extent the MCSO views it as otherwi

otherwise, I'm going to
oth
13
preserve their right to make

whatever argument they wish on
ke whatev
14
appeal.
TH
EF
OG
15:55:40
15
MR. POCHODA:
OD
ODA
16
THE COURT
COURT:
:
All
ll right.
r
OF
All right.
I thank the parties.
15:55:52
Chief
Trombi, thank
a k you.
y .
you
I will expect full and complete compliance.
18
I think
I've
it clear, I'm not going to tolerate any good
k I
've
ve made
m
19
faith
slip-ups
ith
th slip
ip-up
up any more, but I appreciable your coming here,
20
and I hope that these occasions will be exceedingly rare in the
21
future.
future
futur
IE
ND
17
FR
22
2
23
24
25
(Proceedings concluded at 3:56 p.m.)
15:56:03

89
1
C E R T I F I C A T E
.C
OM
3
4
5
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly

dul
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter

for
Repor
p
the United States District Court for the

e District of Arizona.
BO
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
OG
10
a full, true, and accurate transcript

all of that portion of
script
cript of
f al
12
the proceedings contained herein,

in the above-entitled
rein, had
rein
h
i
13
cause on the date specified

ied
d therein,
therein and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my

y direction and control.
TH
EF
11
16
DATED
Arizona, this 4th day of April,
A ED
D at Phoenix,
P
Pho
17
2014.
ND
19
18
OF
15
20
IE
21
FR
22
2
23
24
25
s/Gary Moll

Melendres # 672 140403 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 672 - Transcript - Apr 3 2014 Hearing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Melendres # 672 140403 Transcript - D.ariz. - 2-07-Cv-02513 - 672 - Transcript - Apr 3 2014 Hearing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 89

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

For the Defendants:

Stanley Young, Esq.

Timothy J. Casey, Esq.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 89

Examination by the Court

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 4 of 89

This is civil case 07-2513, Melendres

Arpaio, on for status conference.

Counsel, please announce your appearances.

For plaintiffs, Dan Pochoda

ACLU of Arizona, and by telephone Stan Young

Burling and Cecillia Wang from the Immigrants

Tim Casey and

James Williams from our law

Liddy from the Maricopa

Also, I wanted to -- pursuant to your

I also understand that on the line is Chief Raul

Chief Sheridan, good afternoon.

Martinez from the monitor staff.

Are you here, Chief Martinez?

Now, I do have an outline of five or six things I'd

Yes, Your Honor, I'm here.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 5 of 89

like to cover in this meeting, but Chief Trombi, how about we

Would you come forward, please, and be sworn.

(David Trombi was duly sworn as

David Trombi, T-r-o-m-b-i.

Please raise your right

Please take our

attendance in the public gallery

prohibits recording any proceeding

District Court, so while

quietly, to use your

Twitter, the marshals

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

examined and testified as follows:

Can you please state and spell your

Chief Trombi, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, sir.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 672 Filed 04/04/14 Page 6 of 89

You are in charge of the patrol

division at the MCSO?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

And could you explain to me what the patrol division is?

deputies that work out on patrol in all of the districts

the sheriff's office performing normal patrol functions,

for service, things of that nature.

Patrol Bureau is basically just that:

Thank you for being here.

In addition to that -- that duty,

division, Special Weapons and Tactics,

Support, which operates our posse

our animal crimes investigations

jail operations, which

the sheriff, you're