You are on page 1of 223

286

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

3
4
5

Manuel de Jesus Ortega


Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
April 22, 2015
8:36 a.m.

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

11
12

TH
E

13
14

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

16

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

OF

15

17

(Evidentiary Hearing Day 2, pages 286-511)

18

21
22

Court Reporter:

FR

23

IE

20

ND

19

24
25

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, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 287

A P P E A R A N C E S

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
For the Plaintiffs:

Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.


AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Immigrants' Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 343-0775

4
5
6
7

Stanley Young, Esq.


Hyun S. Byun, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
(650) 632-4700

8
9
10

FO

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.


Joshua D. Bendor, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
Phoenix, Arizona 85014
(602) 650-1854

11
12

TH
E

13
14
15

OF

16
17

20
21
22

24
25

Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.


IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 N. 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 234-9775

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

FR

23

For the Defendants:

ND

19

IE

18

Andre I. Segura, Esq.


AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Immigrants' Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 549-2676

Richard K. Walker, Esq.


WALKER & PESKIND, P.L.L.C.
16100 N. 71st Street
Suite 140
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(480) 483-6336

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 288

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Defendant Arpaio:

4
5

7
8
9
10

For Chief Deputy Sheridan: Lee D. Stein, Esq.


MITCHELL STEIN CAREY
One Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue
Suite 1900
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 358-0290
For Executive Chief Sands:

11
12

Greg S. Como, Esq.


LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& SMITH, L.L.P.
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
(602) 385-1040

TH
E

13
14

A. Melvin McDonald, Esq.


JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 263-1700

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

18

For Lieutenant Sousa:

16

15

OF

17

For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.


DICKINSON WRIGHT, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1400
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 285-5000

21
22

FR

23

ALSO PRESENT:

IE

20

ND

19

24
25

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.


DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.
2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 237-5076
Chief Robert Warshaw
Chief John Girvin
Chief Raul Martinez

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 289

I N D E X
Witness:

BRIAN SANDS

Cross-Examination by Mr. Como


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Redirect Examination by Mr. Young
Recross-Examination by Mr. Como
Cross-Examination by Mr. Walker
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate

5
6
7
8

Page

BRIAN JAMES JAKOWINICZ

12

MICHAEL TROWBRIDGE

13

15

Direct Examination by Mr. Segura


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Mr. Segura
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate

16

EMILY DOAN

17

Direct Examination by Mr. Byun


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate

19
20
21
22

24
25

TH
E

OF

Direct Examination by Mr. Young

FR

23

320
336
348
352
353
354

361
398
412
417
420
423

428
449
459
460
463

464
468

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO

18

ND

14

IE

10

FO

11

Direct Examination by Mr. Segura


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Walker
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Mr. Segura
Examination by the Court

GB
OW
.C
OM

473

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 290

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

No.

Description

Dkt 838-1 - Declaration of John ("Jack")


MacIntyre - Ex. A to Partial Joinder dated
1/8/2015

295

29

Dkt 806 - Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and


Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's Motion for
Determination of Counsel dated 12/1/2014

295

34

Melendres v. Arpaio Defendants' Privilege Log

295

35

Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County 295


Sheriff's Office's Response to Plaintiffs'
Amended First Set of Interrogatories to
Defendants Regarding Contempt dated 3/13/2015

36

E-mail from Larry Farnsworth/Deputy Chief


Trombi to All Sworn commanders re "FW:
Video/Audio Recordings Responses
CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS" dated 5/17/2014
(MELC004554 - MELC004562)

295

37

Sealed portion of status conference transcript


from proceedings pages 35-104 dated 5/14/2014

295

42

MCSO Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Dave


Munley re Weekly Status Report dated 6/13/2014
(MELC004993 - MELC004998)

295

43

MCSO Memorandum to Brian Jakowinicz from Glen


Powe re Traffic Stop Videos dated 6/6/2014
(MELC104078 - MELC104079)

295

MCSO Memorandum to Steve Bailey from Brian


Jakowinicz re Video/Audio dated 5/29/2014
(MELC004762 - MELC004766)

295

Spreadsheet showing MCSO personnel issued


recording devices (MELCOl1650)

295

E-mail to Jerry Sheridan from Joe Sousa re


"your request" dated 9/4/2008
(Melendres MCSO 095936)

295

11

FO

10

12

19
20
21
22

45
47

FR

23

44

OF

18

17

ND

16

IE

15

TH
E

13
14

24
25

Admitted

GB
OW
.C
OM

E X H I B I T S

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 291

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Description

49

E-mail to Brian Sands and Frank Munnell from


295
Jerry Sheridan re "FH Letter" dated 12/1/2009
(Melendres MCSO 069074 - Melendres MCSO 069075)

51

MCSO News Release, First Time: ICE Refuses to


360
Accept Illegal Aliens from Sheriffs Deputies
During Human Smuggling Operation dated 9/21/2012

52

MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Execute


Search Warrant at Construction Company dated
9/27/2012

360

53

Dkt 842 - Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and


Maricopa County Sheriffs Office's Memorandum
Pursuant to Court's December 4, 2014 Order
dated 1/8/2015

360

54

Illegal Immigration Operation Stat/Worksheet


DR 10-060510 (MEL064120-121)

360

56

Incident Report, IR 12-171046 dated 9/21/2012

59

MCSO News Release, First Time: ICE Refuses to


360
Accept Illegal Aliens from Sheriffs Deputies
During Human Smuggling Operation dated 9/21/2012

71

Dkt 948 - Expedited Motion to Vacate Hearing


and Request for Entry of Judgment dated
3/17/2015

475

72

Dkt 880 - Order to Show Cause dated 2/12/2015

476

17
18
19
20
21
22

76

FR

23

75

OF

16

15

24
25

360

MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Office Stops 28


496
More Illegal Aliens Involved in Human Smuggling
dated 12/30/2011

ND

14

IE

13

TH
E

11
12

Admitted

GB
OW
.C
OM

No.

FO

E X H I B I T S

MCSO News Release, Sheriff Arpaio Continues


Fight Against Illegal Immigration, Six More
Illegal Aliens Arrested by Human Smuggling
Detectives dated 2/9/2012

360

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 292

1
Description

77

MCSO News Release, Sheriffs Deputies Discover


Two Young Children Being Smuggled into the
Country by Human Smugglers, Children Knew
No One in the Vehicle

360

82

MCSO News Release, 2nd Time ICE Refuses to


Accept Illegal Alien From Sheriffs Deputies
Since September dated 10/9/2012

360

90

MCSO News Release, Seven Booked on Human


360
Smuggling Charges by HSU Detectives in the
Maricopa County Sheriffs Office dated 4/17/2013

10

93

MCSO Press Releases for 2013

11

94

MCSO Press Releases for 2011 from Internet


Archive

360

95

MCSO Press Releases for 2012 from Internet


Archive

360

14

96

MCSO Press Releases 2013, from Internet Archive 360

15

97

MCSO Press Releases year 2011 from Internet


Archive

98

MCSO Press Releases year 2012 from Internet


Archive

360

99

MCSO Press Releases year 2013 from Internet


Archive

360

Dkt 881, Order dated 2/12/2015

360

E-mail chain from Sousa re "FW: Updated stats"


and attaching "Criminal Employments stats
03-28-12.doc; 03-28-12.doc" dated 3/28/2012
(MELC114928 - MELC11493l)

360

MCSO Memorandum from Trowbridge to Jakowinicz


re Armendariz dated 2/13/2013
(MELC003738 - MELC003739)

394

3
4
5
6
7
8

17
18
19
20
21
22

TH
E

100
115

133

FR

23

OF

16

ND

13

IE

12

FO

24
25

Admitted

GB
OW
.C
OM

No.

E X H I B I T S

360

360

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 293

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Spreadsheet of video-recorded traffic stops


(excerpted to only Sousa)

360

166

MCSO Memorandum from Sousa re "Missing


Scorpion Micro Video Body Camera" dated
5/21/2014 (MELC098123)

360

167

MCSO Memorandum from Madrid to Sousa re "Audio/ 360


Video Recordings Response, SWAT Division"
dated 6/5/2014 (MELC098092 - MELC098093
Video Clip 2 of Univision Interview published
501
March 1, 2012

202B
202C

Video Clip 3 of Univision Interview published


March 1, 2012

505

207

Spreadsheet re MCSO Master Incident Report Log


from 2011, Brian Jakowinicz Depo Exhibit 181

383

208

Spreadsheet re MCSO Master Incident Report Log


from 2012, Brian Jakowinicz Depo Exhibit 182

386

209

Spreadsheet re MCSO Master Incident Report Log


from 2013, Brian Jakowinicz Depo Exhibit 183

388

214

Spreadsheet re Video Log of Discs from MCSO

466

215

Spreadsheet re Incident Reports

486

FR

23

165

24
25

GB
OW
.C
OM

360

FO

MCSO Memorandum from Sousa re "Video/Audio"


dated 5/19/2014 MELC098120 - MELC098121)

TH
E

Admitted

OF

164

Description

ND

No.

IE

E X H I B I T S

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 294

P R O C E E D I N G S

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

Have the parties stipulated to exhibits that we can

Please be seated.

admit to make matters run more smoothly?

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor, we've been talking --

THE COURT:

And by "parties," I hope that we're

remembering Mr. Walker and Mr. Como.

MR. YOUNG:

Yes.

Yes.

And I can report on our

progress, and I'll report on the stages of our discussion.

11

Ms. Iafrate and plaintiffs agreed on a set of exhibits.

12

Mr. Walker and Mr. Como joined the discussion, and I think that

13

we have a list which all of us have agreed on.

TH
E

14

THE COURT:

All right.

15

MR. YOUNG:

I believe that various of us are still

considering others, so we may have more stipulations.

17

understand it, subject to correction by folks on the other side

18

here, I believe we've all stipulated to the introduction of the

19

following:

20

44, 45, 47, and 49.

21

THE COURT:

08:36:57

But as I

OF

16

IE

ND

Exhibits 1, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, maybe 38, 42, 43,

MR. COMO:

08:37:28

Okay.

Do we have a stipulation as to 38?

I have 38 as already being in evidence,

Your Honor.

FR

23

08:36:41

FO

10

22

08:36:26

24

THE COURT:

It apparently is already in evidence.

25

MR. YOUNG:

That solves that problem, then.

08:37:47

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 295

All right.

So does any party disagree

with the exhibits as they've been read by Mr. Young?

MR. COMO:

MR. WALKER:

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

I do not, Your Honor.

And neither do I, Your Honor.


No, Your Honor.

All right.

So Exhibits 1 -- Nick, I'll

read these so you can get them down, and tell me if I need to

slow down -- 1, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, and 49

are admitted.

(Exhibits 1, 29, 34-37, 42-45, 47, and 49 admitted.)

11

THE COURT:

All right.

If you can arrive at other

stipulations, let me know, and we'll handle them in like

13

manner, and that way we can expedite matters.


I've also received from the parties their joint list,
so today --

deposition of Lieutenant Sousa, Ms. Iafrate?


MS. IAFRATE:

18

22

Well, were you able to read the


08:39:10

MS. IAFRATE:

Not all of it, Your Honor, but I'm

prepared.

FR

23

I did the best I could, Your Honor.

deposition?

IE

21

THE COURT:

ND

19
20

08:38:57

Were you able to read last night, as I had hoped, the

OF

16
17

TH
E

12

15

08:38:10

FO

10

14

08:38:02

THE COURT:

You are prepared.

24

MS. IAFRATE:

25

THE COURT:

I am.

All right.

So we will have -- I assume

08:39:14

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 296

we'll finish with Chief Sands this morning, and then we will go

Sousa -- and I assume that we're just going to proceed as

you've indicated.

they were going to be your witnesses anyway, Ms. Iafrate, we'll

just go as we've gone with kind of the double-back procedure.

We haven't seemed to have a lot of problem with that.

GB
OW
.C
OM

If you call them in your case in chief and

Is that acceptable to you?

MS. IAFRATE:

That is, with the -- I would just like

to put on the record also, Your Honor, that

Lieutenant Jakowinicz was not a witness that I was prepared,

11

and I explained that to plaintiffs yesterday.

FO

10

12

However, I am prepared to proceed today.

14

to me for this evidentiary hearing, but I am ready to proceed.

TH
E

witness that I defended in depositions, and he was not assigned

THE COURT:

16

So we will go -- how long do we anticipate with

MS. WANG:

of our witnesses I can give you now.

20

our direct --

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

22

ND

19

21

24
25

08:40:10

Your Honor, we have time estimates for all

18

Thank you.

OF

15

Mr. Sousa?

All right.

08:39:51

He was not a

13

17

08:39:39

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:

For Lieutenant Sousa for


08:40:26

Yes.
-- I would estimate one and a half hours.
All right.
For Lieutenant Jakowinicz, I'd estimate one

hour; for Sergeant Trowbridge, 45 minutes.

08:40:33

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 297

Emily Doan, Your Honor, is a witness for plaintiffs


who will go through some pretrial discovery matters.

proposed a stipulation to the other parties that would obviate

the need for her to testify at all, and they're considering

that now.

THE COURT:

MS. WANG:

If we don't reach a stipulation, that will

only take 15 minutes, I think.

9
10

All right.

For Sheriff Arpaio, we estimate three hours on direct,


and for Chief Sheridan, one and a half hours.

11

THE COURT:

Okay.

13

Steve Bailey, and Steve Fax?

TH
E

defendants were going to call MacIntyre, Jones, Tiffany Shaw,

14

MS. IAFRATE:

I discussed with plaintiffs' counsel

that depending on what plaintiffs do in their case in chief,

16

some of those will likely be either eliminated or deferred.

OF

15

17

THE COURT:

All right.

19

Sousa's cross?

ND

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

THE COURT:

24
25

An hour.

08:41:57

Jakowinicz, or Jakowinicz, sorry.

I am so

sorry to Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

FR

23

Any estimates on

guess -- well, let me ask you, Ms. Iafrate:

22

08:41:34

So it looks to me, by best

18

21

08:41:04

Then in addition I take it the

12

20

08:40:54

FO

We have

GB
OW
.C
OM

right.

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

Jakowinicz.

Jakowinicz, with a V?

I will get his name


08:42:15

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 298

Lieutenant Jakowinicz, how long --

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

Trowbridge?
15 minutes.

Doan, if there's no stipulation?


I don't know.

You know what her testimony's about,

apparently?

MS. IAFRATE:

10

THE COURT:

11

MS. IAFRATE:

12

THE COURT:

13

MS. IAFRATE:

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. IAFRATE:

16

THE COURT:

I do.

So is it going to be long?
No.

TH
E

An hour and a half.

Deputy Chief Sheridan?


An hour and a half.

OF

18

You certainly have the right.

08:42:56

Mr. Walker, do you anticipate -- you

haven't questioned yet.

Do you anticipate doing questioning?

Thank you, Your Honor.

If I have

ND

MR. WALKER:

questions for any of the witnesses, they will probably be very

21

few, and I would anticipate they would add no more to the

24
25

08:43:07

cross-examination than 10 to 15 minutes.

FR

23

IE

20

22

08:42:36

Sheriff Arpaio?

17

19

08:42:25

FO

Half hour.

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:

As the total, or in each case?


In each case.

But there's some of these

witnesses I'm fairly sure I'll have no questions for.

08:43:25

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 299

THE COURT:

Mr. Como?

MR. COMO:

All right.

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Your Honor, obviously Brian Sands will be

testifying today on direct, and I anticipate that going

approximately 45 minutes.

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

All right.

Lieutenant Sousa, I anticipate a half an

hour; Lieutenant Jakowinicz, a half an hour; Trowbridge, I

would estimate probably 15 minutes, at most; and Sheriff Arpaio


and Chief Sheridan, I would say half an hour or less for each

11

of those witnesses.

Presently, I would estimate about 15 minutes, but I


don't know, obviously, what their testimony's going to be,

14

so...

15

TH
E

13

THE COURT:

All right.

Let me say that it seems to me

that the remain -- we can then finish going through Friday.

17

The one single wrinkle on the complication, and I don't know if

18

he -- I assume that he copied you on the e-mail to the Court,

19

which was Mr. McDonald's request because he's been asked to

20

speak at the funeral involving a tragic situation.

21

like given your order, Sheriff Arpaio will be up to testify

24
25

ND

08:44:38

IE

Looks to me

tomorrow, so that should not interfere with Mr. McDonald's need


to attend the funeral.

FR

23

08:44:06

OF

16

22

08:43:54

FO

10

12

08:43:34

Mr. McDonald, I think that what we can do is make sure

you're here for Sheriff Arpaio's testimony, which will be the

08:45:00

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 300

most important aspect of that.

2
3

MR. McDONALD:

Right.

He and Chief Sheridan are the

GB
OW
.C
OM

two that are critical for me to be present at.

THE COURT:

Well, I can't guaranty, of course, that

you'll be here for Chief Sheridan.

But fortunately you work at

a large law firm and maybe you can have somebody cover.

have you -- it looks to me, and we're all going to be sensitive

to the fact, you definitely need to be here when Sheriff

Arpaio's testifying, and we'll have you here.

We'll

You may have to

have somebody cover for a little bit of Chief Sheridan, but

11

we'll try and accommodate that funeral request.


MR. McDONALD:

13

THE COURT:

TH
E

MR. COMO:
Honor.

THE COURT:

18

MR. COMO:

22

THE COURT:
MR. COMO:

24
25

This is an evidentiary motion; I'll style


I apologize that we didn't --

Can you get right to it, Mr. Como?


Sure.

08:46:04

The issue, Your Honor, concerns

evidence relating to the ongoing application of the LEAR policy


and the detention of individuals to be turned over to ICE and

FR

23

All right.

it as a verbal motion in limine.

ND

21

08:45:42

IE

20

I have one issue I'd like to raise, Your

17

19

Are there any other matters that would

be -- that should be taken up before we begin at 9 o'clock?

15
16

Thank you, Judge.

OF

14

08:45:28

FO

10

12

08:45:13

Border Patrol after this Court's preliminary injunction ruling.


THE COURT:

Right.

08:46:25

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 301

MR. COMO:

It's our position that evidence of that

should be excluded from this hearing based on relevance and 403

grounds.

that that LEAR policy was a violation of the preliminary

injunction.

brought the contempt claim, if they had one, at that time

rather than waiting a year and a half to do so.

The Court made it very clear in its May 2013 ruling

It's our position that the plaintiffs should have

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

Motion's overruled.

I would like the opportunity to make a full

record on this, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. COMO:

Well, then I'll have to object every time

14

record --

TH
E

one of those exhibits is offered.

15

THE COURT:

16

MR. COMO:

17

THE COURT:

18

MR. SCHWAB:

I'm trying to make a

I'll give you a continuing objection.

OF

Yes, sir.

Your Honor, briefly, Doug Schwab on

20

Arpaio.

ND

behalf of the County Attorney's Office representing Sheriff

IE

THE COURT:
MR. SCHWAB:

08:47:35

All right.
Yesterday after the discussion of

conflicts I had concerns of my own.

FR

23

08:47:16

Thank you, Your Honor.

19

22

08:47:03

You have.

13

21

08:46:49

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

I addressed those with the

24

county attorney and I was referred to independent ethics

25

counsel, briefly last night and at more length this morning,

08:47:41

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 302

and she is reaching and analyzing that issue right now.


THE COURT:

MR. SCHWAB:

THE COURT:

Well, all right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Just wanted to let the Court know.

Are you comfortable staying at counsel

table?

As I said, I think it's pretty clear that -- I've

reread it again.

about the appropriate party that -- in terms of name only, and

the difference, there is no difference in the representation.

Ms. Iafrate's doing a beautiful job.

I think the Ninth Circuit is only talking

That doesn't mean that I

am going to dictate to Mr. Casey or to you whatever your

11

ethical obligations are.

bar so I don't --

But we're proceeding.

I would think it best if I sat behind the

TH
E

13

MR. SCHWAB:

14

THE COURT:

15

Mr. Como, I'm going to give you a chance, if you can

That's fine.

do it briefly, to state whatever you want to state to make your

17

full record.

MR. COMO:

21
22

Thank you, Your Honor.


I would ask you to do it expeditiously.
I think the only point that I didn't get

08:48:43

to, Your Honor, is the basis for the argument is a res judicata
argument.

It's a principle of merger, which is that they had a

final judgment that there had been a violation of the

FR

23

MR. COMO:

IE

20

THE COURT:

ND

19

08:48:30

OF

16

18

08:48:14

FO

10

12

08:47:55

24

preliminary injunction, their claims at that time merged.

25

should have brought the contempt claim at that time.

They

Their

08:49:07

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 303

failure to do so, I believe, bars them from doing it a year and

a half to two years later.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'd be happy to submit a brief on this issue.

simply wanted to do it because there are a lot of evidence,

exhibits that go to this issue, and I don't want to waive the

issue by allowing in all this testimony in evidence.

THE COURT:

Yeah, you haven't waived it.

I'm going to

give you a continuing objection.

highly relevant, and certainly, while I was aware at trial and

It does seem to me to be

I became aware during some of the testimony and I noted it in

11

my May 13th order that there were violations of the preliminary

12

injunction, I'm not sure that even I was aware of the vast

13

scope of those violations.

14

order, so I'm not sure where your res judicata argument would

15

come in.

16

full, but I am denying your motion.

TH
E

OF

18

on it, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

ND

19

IE

MR. WALKER:

08:50:15

For the record, Your Honor, I'd like to

note that the County joins Mr. Como's motion.

I understand the

judge's ruling.

24
25

You bet.

Mr. Walker.

FR

23

08:50:03

Thank you for allowing me to make a record

MR. COMO:

22

And I noted the violations in the

But again, I want you to be able to preserve it in

17

21

08:49:42

FO

10

20

08:49:22

hear it.

THE COURT:

But he joined the County, if you didn't

I'm sorry, he joined Chief Sands in the motion.

08:50:36

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 304

MR. McDONALD:

Your Honor, could I just say one thing

about Mr. Liddy's withdrawal?

THE COURT:

MR. McDONALD:

Sure.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You'll notice in the paperwork that was

filed that Sheriff Arpaio did not sign on consenting the

withdrawal.

recognized it, Mr. Liddy is probably one of the most

knowledgeable people in the case.

respect for Michele Iafrate, I think to put the responsibility

It's my belief, and I think Your Honor one time

And even though I have great

of Mr. Liddy's witnesses on her shoulders with less than 24

11

hours' time to prepare is burdensome.

12

If there is a conflict, the sheriff would waive the


conflict, and we would ask the -- we think it could prejudice

14

Ms. Iafrate's ability to find out information and to bring out

15

information that Mr. Liddy may know that would help the Court

16

in its findings, and I would simply ask that the Court not

17

grant Mr. Liddy's request to withdraw.

OF

TH
E

13

22

Apparently

I haven't had a chance to read it.

ND

you did file it, Mr. Liddy.

Let me tell you where I'm coming from.

And this is

08:51:52

not really about your request, Mr. Liddy, but I will read it,
and I read it -- but coming to work this morning I was a
witness to an automobile accident that looked like it might

FR

23

I've just been handed that.

08:51:31

IE

21

THE COURT:

18

20

08:51:09

FO

10

19

08:50:51

24

have resulted in serious injuries.

I had to get here 'cause I

25

told you I'd be here by 8:30 and I had to review some matters.

08:52:11

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 305

I told the police I'd come back and fill out a witness

statement.

here.

make 9 o'clock.

It's very close to

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to do that right now.

I hopefully will be back, but I'm not probably going to

I'll try to be back 9:05, 9:10.

On the way from talking to the police I'm going to


review your motion, Mr. Liddy, but let me just ask you:

there anything about your conflict that you perceive prevents

you in your desire to withdraw, that you perceive prevents you

from cooperating with Ms. Iafrate in terms of information that

10

she might seek that would assist her in this representation or

11

access to documents, or information that might be within your

12

knowledge and possession?

13

is a conflict, then we're going to address that right now.


MR. LIDDY:

Your Honor, the vast majority of the

information I have about this case I have no problem sharing

16

with Ms. Iafrate or Mr. Walker.

17

knowledge which I have received pursuant to my confidential

18

relationship with both the sheriff and the County that I can

19

share with neither.

22

08:53:19

ND

However, I do have some

All right.

Let me ask you, would you feel

08:53:39

comfortable disclosing that to me at sidebar?


MR. LIDDY:

No, Your Honor.

I'm bound by the ethical

canons not to disclose that information.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

OF

15

20

08:52:50

And if your position is that there

TH
E

14

Is

FO

08:52:30

24

THE COURT:

Well --

25

MR. LIDDY:

I could disclose the nature of it without

08:53:55

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 306

disclosing --

THE COURT:

Yeah, that's all I meant was the nature of

GB
OW
.C
OM

it.

And I think as I recall the canons I could require you to

disclose it.

want to do that.

comfortable disclosing the nature of the information in open

court?

8
9

You can disclose it upon court order.

I don't

I just want to -- let me ask you:

MR. LIDDY:

Are you

No, Your Honor, but I am comfortable

disclosing it at sidebar with the Court and with -THE COURT:

Other counsel.

11

MR. LIDDY:

-- defense counsel, not with plaintiffs'

THE COURT:

Well, when you say defense counsel, we

TH
E

counsel.

13
14

also have Maricopa County and we have Chief Sands.

15

comfortable disclosing it in front of Maricopa County and

16

Chief Sands?

17

plaintiffs' counsel in that instance.

21
22

OF

Caution would -- I'd feel comfortable

disclosing the nature of the information to the Court.


THE COURT:

All right.

Well, why don't you do that,

08:54:54

unless any party objects, and I'm going to try to evaluate


whether or not there's a reason then, in light of the
information, that I should -- and just to be frank, Mr. Liddy,

FR

23

And I'm not really sure why we would exclude

MR. LIDDY:

ND

20

08:54:31

IE

19

Are you

18

08:54:22

FO

10

12

08:54:08

24

so you know what I'm doing, I would be -- I need to evaluate

25

that information in terms of evaluating your request to

08:55:13

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 307

withdraw, and then I may need to evaluate it to see if I think

the parties need to know what it is in order to be heard on

your request to withdraw in a knowledgeable way.

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. LIDDY:

Understood, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

sidebar and I'll hear it.

MR. WALKER:

So why don't you approach

I'd just like to note for the record the

County does not object to the disclosure so long as it is

confined to a description of the categorical nature of the


information with which Mr. Liddy is concerned.

11

THE COURT:

12

mean the disclosure publicly?

13

MR. WALKER:

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. IAFRATE:

16

THE COURT:

When you say object to disclosure, you

TH
E

No, the disclosure to the Court.

All right.

OF

All right.

18

MS. IAFRATE:

apprised of the nature of this?

22

FR

23

ND

21

24
25

No, Your Honor.

All right.

Well, then, I think we need to


08:56:27

MR. LIDDY:

I'm comfortable with that, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

(Bench conference on the record.)


(Page 307, line 24, through page 311, line 15, sealed

by court order.)

08:56:14

Are you both -- are you both

have defense come.

IE

20

THE COURT:

Ms. Iafrate?

I would agree, Your Honor.

17

19

08:56:05

FO

10

08:55:31

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 311

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

FO

10
11
12

TH
E

13
14
15

09:01:04

(Bench conference concluded.)

17

THE COURT:

OF

16

All right.

I've spoken with Mr. Liddy,

Ms. Iafrate and Mr. Walker.

19

Mr. Liddy has been actively involved in the preparation of this

20

case in terms of factual and legal preparation and legal

21

positions.

ND

I believe I am correctly stating his position to

say that he has no problem fully cooperating with Ms. Iafrate


and Mr. Walker and giving them access to everything he knows

FR

23

09:01:13

IE

22

In the course of his duties,

18

24

regarding the facts and the legal preparation and the legal

25

memorandum in this case.

09:01:33

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 312

He, however, has also, in his capacity within Maricopa


County, had occasion to consult with the board of supervisors

and received direction from them and County executive

management.

received in that capacity with the sheriff, but that in no way

restricts him in his ability as it pertains -- or his

willingness as it pertains to the facts, the law, or anything

else with respect to this case.

He is restricted from discussing the advice he

Is that a correct statement of your position,


Mr. Liddy?

11

MR. LIDDY:

13

County, as "direction."

TH
E

information I received in confidence from my client, the

THE COURT:

Thank you.

15

MR. LIDDY:

Nor did I receive advice from the board of

THE COURT:

All right.

18

At sidebar Ms. Iafrate said she needs a day to absorb

17

from Mr. Liddy information pertaining to Mr. Sousa and who

20

else?

THE COURT:

Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

Okay.

I'm not going to give her a day,

but I am going to give you two hours, and we will resume at

FR

23

09:02:51

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

22

ND

19

21

09:02:27

OF

14

supervisors.

09:02:16

Except that I would not categorize the

12

16

09:02:00

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

11 o'clock with the deposition -- or with the testimony of

25

Chief Sands.

Then we'll move into Sousa and Jakowinicz --

09:03:04

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 313

Jakowinicz, as we've indicated.

court at 11 o'clock.

All right?

So we will resume

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE CLERK:

(Recess taken.)

THE CLERK:

All rise, please.

THE COURT:

Please be seated.

Mr. Liddy, will you please come forward.

All rise, please.

session.

podium for a minute.

Take the

Mr. Liddy, I do want to state as you're coming forward


that you have been in this case a long time, and I do, as I've

12

indicated before, while I haven't always accepted your

13

positions, you've been an ardent advocate for the sheriff's

14

positions.

15

TH
E

11

I am not going to immediately grant your motion.

want to explain why.

17

obligation to act as you see fit ethically, and I want to

18

outline why I'm not going to immediately grant your motion to

19

withdraw.

22

And want to acknowledge your right and

ND

You have in your motion designated as the reason that

necessitates your withdrawal 1.7(a)(2).

11:01:58

And I was able to look

at that during the little break we've had, and it is you're


obligated to withdraw if there is a significant risk that the

FR

23

11:01:40

IE

21

11:01:19

OF

16

20

11:01:03

FO

10

Court is now in

24

representation of one or more clients will be materially

25

limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a

11:02:23

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 314

former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of

the lawyer, and I understand why that may pose a problem for

you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I have stated several times that I think that the

position that the County has taken in various ways is an odd

one, and that's partly because we have an odd system of

government in Arizona that allows the sheriff to be

independently elected but the County in many ways financially

responsible for the sheriff's choices.

I do believe that the County has taken the position

11

and received an order from the court of appeals that MCSO is

12

not a jural entity, and that according to the court of appeals'

13

opinions, the proper party, being the County, should be

14

substituted in when that determination is made, and that's how

15

I determine what the Ninth Circuit did as substitute in the

16

County.

TH
E

I understand by the presence of Mr. Walker here that


the County wants to take, perhaps, or preserve the right to

19

take, certain substantive or legal opinions that would be

20

separate, or that would argue that there is a separation that

21

would be inconsistent with the -- perhaps inconsistent in some

IE

ND

18

11:03:30

ways with the jural entity argument and all that stuff.

FR

23

11:03:14

OF

17

22

11:02:56

FO

10

11:02:38

However, just before we went to break Mr. Walker said

24

the County was willing to waive any conflict with respect to

25

your ongoing representation, and the sheriff indicated that he

11:03:49

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 315

was not going to sign off on your withdrawal.

me, as I look at it, as you have outlined the conflict and the

reasons for your concern, I understand what you're telling me,

that the -- certain of your interactions with respect to the

Melendres case with the board of supervisors and County

management are things that you cannot now disclose to the

sheriff in light of the possibly differing opinions.

8
9

And it seems to

GB
OW
.C
OM

But you've also said there is no reason why you can't


advocate all of the facts and all of the law that pertains to
this case in favor of the sheriff.

And so I'm not sure that

11

the sheriff doesn't have a valid basis, Ms. Iafrate, to argue

12

that 1.7(a)(2) just does not apply in this circumstance,

13

because there's not a significant risk that you're -- that

14

you're going to, in your representation, in any way impair the

15

sheriff's interests.

TH
E

11:05:07

And Mr. Walker apparently doesn't believe you're going

OF

16

to impair the County's interests.

And you seem to me to be

18

quite attuned to your ethical obligations insofar as it

19

pertains to not disclosing confidential communications you've

20

had with the board of supervisors.

21

you to go forward on that basis, I think I'm going to have to

IE

ND

17

And so if the sheriff wants

11:05:24

allow them to make that argument.

FR

23

11:04:37

FO

10

22

11:04:15

And as far as I'm concerned, if all the parties want

24

to stipulate, you can cross-examine and do the examination of

25

Lieutenant Sousa if you're comfortable with it; if you're not,

11:05:38

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 316

I understand.

If you're not, though, we've just given you the

two hours, and you'll also have the lunch break, which we're

going to take at 1 o'clock, to further deal -- or inform

Ms. Iafrate, consistent with your indication that you would

fully cooperate in that respect.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you understand what I'm saying?

MR. LIDDY:

I do, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. WALKER:

Your Honor, just to clarify, if I said

that I was --

11
12

Mr. Walker.

THE COURT:
what you said.

Well, and let me say I may have misstated

I'm just stating what I recall --

MR. WALKER:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. WALKER:

Okay.

TH
E

13

-- and so please clarify.


Yes.

What I meant to say is that I had

no objection to Mr. Liddy participating to the extent of

17

assisting both the County and Ms. Iafrate with his knowledge of

18

the history of the case, and the issues, and the facts in the

19

case.

20

a formal sense, and I would have to seek my client's permission

21

to do that.

IE

ND

I'm not authorized at this moment to waive a conflict in

THE COURT:

I understand.

11:06:37

And so I understand,

Mr. Liddy, while you may or may not -- I mean, it's up to you,

FR

23

11:06:12

OF

16

22

11:06:05

FO

10

11:05:56

24

first, whether or not you feel like you can cross-examine or do

25

the examination of Lieutenant Sousa.

But if you determine that

11:06:54

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 317

you can, and none of the parties object, then I'm going to

allow you to do it.

GB
OW
.C
OM

If you determine that wisdom suggests that you not do

that, I completely understand.

now to bring Ms. Iafrate up to speed; she's had the ability to

read the deposition.

We've given you the opportunity

I'm just telling you that.

But we're in the middle now of the testimony of

Chief Sands, so you'll have a little bit of time to think about

it.

Did you have anything you wanted to say?

11

MR. LIDDY:

FO

10

Yes, Your Honor.

one point that I never said that I would be -- that I was able

13

to advocate on behalf of the sheriff.

14

unencumbered in meeting my ethical obligation to assist --

TH
E

I said I would be

THE COURT:

Okay.

16

MR. LIDDY:

-- the sheriff in the transition, and I

can do that with factual knowledge that I have.


I also would like to place on the record that I am in

18

possession of confidential information which I may not share

20

with this Court that I received from --

IE

FR

23

ND

19

22

24
25

11:07:37

OF

15

21

11:07:20

I would like to clarify

12

17

11:07:08

THE COURT:

Yeah, that's fine.

MR. LIDDY:

-- client.

THE COURT:

That's fine.

MR. LIDDY:

I cannot get that information out of my

head, and I cannot advocate -- the substantial risk is a -- is

11:07:53

11:08:02

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 318

real.

have no discretion.

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. LIDDY:

And I have legal advice from ethics

It is in fact there, and I'm obligated to withdraw.

counsel that so states.

THE COURT:

All right.

I respect that.

will -- I'm going to require you to fully cooperate with

Ms. Iafrate, as you've indicated you will.

Do you have any problem with that?


MR. LIDDY:

None whatsoever.

THE COURT:

All right.

my honor.

12

It's my obligation and

Then we will proceed on that

basis.

However, I'm still not going to grant your formal

14

motion to withdraw until the parties have had a chance to weigh

15

in on that.

TH
E

13

MR. LIDDY:

I appreciate that, Your Honor.

17

THE COURT:

Thank you very much, Mr. Liddy.

18

I believe, Ms. Iafrate, we're at the cross-examination


of Chief Sands.

20

ND

19

Your Honor, a brief housekeeping matter to

11:08:48

actually add an attorney to the -- and introduce an attorney to


Your Honor.

Hyun Byun, my colleague at Covington & Burling,

has joined us at counsel table.

FR

23

MR. YOUNG:

IE

22

11:08:36

OF

16

21

11:08:25

FO

10
11

11:08:16

Then we

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

THE COURT:

Welcome.

25

Ms. Iafrate.

11:09:00

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 319

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, just a couple housekeeping

matters.

Before the break I was informed that the witnesses

are going to change order, so we're actually taking

Lieutenant Jakowinicz after Chief Sands.

is another one that I was not prepared for, so Mr. Liddy and I

used the time during the break to prepare for

Lieutenant Jakowinicz rather than Lieutenant Sousa.

THE COURT:

Is that correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Lieutenant Jakowinicz

Thank you for that clarification.

MS. WANG:

That is correct, Your Honor.

11

Just by way of brief explanation, our late start this


morning, combined with Mr. McDonald's announcement that he'll

13

be absent Friday, led us to be concerned that we want to finish

14

with Sheriff Arpaio's testimony by the end of the day tomorrow.

15

So we proposed that we will simply move Lieutenant Sousa till

16

after Sheriff Arpaio to make sure that happens.

OF

TH
E

12

THE COURT:

That's fine.

18

I do think it's very important that in light of

Let me just clarify.

Mr. McDonald's personal circumstances we accommodate him how we

20

can, but even he has not asked not to be here all day on

21

Friday.

22

IE

ND

19

11:10:01

He has acknowledged that there would be two -- an

hour, I think, before the lunch hour, an hour afterwards, maybe


two, that he would need to be gone.

FR
25

11:09:47

17

24

11:09:34

FO

10

23

11:09:16

I've indicated, I think, that for that brief time he

can have one of his associates doing the coverage.

But I do

11:10:16

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

320

think it's important that while Sheriff Arpaio's on the stand,

Mr. McDonald be here.

All right.

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

So just for that clarification.


We ready to proceed, then?
No, Your Honor.

information.

One more piece of

We would request that Mr. Como handle the

cross-examination first and then I follow, because this is

Mr. Como's client.


THE COURT:

I think that's fair.

10

MR. COMO:

Thank you, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT:

Sure.

12

That's fair.

Please, Mr. Como.

BRIAN SANDS,

recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly

14

sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

TH
E

13

15

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COMO:

17

Q.

18

Sheriff's Office before you retired?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

11:10:54

OF

16

Chief Sands, you worked approximately 30 years at the

ND

Just short of 30 years, yes.


Was your retirement voluntary?

11:11:00

Yes.

IE
Q.

During your entire career at the Sheriff's Office were you

ever disciplined for any reason?

FR

23

11:10:43

FO

22

11:10:32

24

A.

No.

25

Q.

Since your retirement do you have -- did you go on to work

11:11:10

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

321

at another job?

A.

No, I did not.

Q.

Is your primary source of income your pension from the

County?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Who presently lives with you?

A.

My wife and my son.

Q.

Before your -- your work with the County Sheriff's Office,

what did you do?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I served for eight years in the United States Army.

11

Q.

Were you honorably discharged?

12

A.

Yes, I was, yes.

13

Q.

I'd like to go back in time to when you were the chief of

14

enforcement in 2011.

15

time?

16

A.

17

primarily over patrol operations, the other one was primarily

18

over investigative operations, and the other one was in charge

19

of training per -- I'm sorry, not personnel, but records and ID

20

and civil and criminal warrants.

21

Q.

TH
E

One was

ND

OF

11:11:53

11:12:23

Who was the person in charge of the training bureau, the

bureau that included training?


A.

FR

23

What divisions reported to you at that

I had three bureau commanders that reported to me.

IE

22

11:11:35

FO

10

11:11:20

Well, it changed.

After we reorganized, the person

24

directly -- the director over training primarily during my time

25

was Director Rollie Seebert.

11:12:43

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

322

Q.

And who did Rollie Seebert report to?

A.

He reported at one time to Chief Trombi, and then later to

Chief Chagolla.

Q.

Detective Seibert, or what was his title?

A.

Director.

Q.

I'm sorry, Director Seibert.

Okay.

8
9

GB
OW
.C
OM

You remember in early 2012 who -- who -- did you say

Do you remember in early 2012 who Director Seebert was


reporting to?
A.

Would have been Chief Trombi.

11

Q.

How many sworn deputies worked under your ultimate command

12

back in 2011, 2012?

13

A.

At that time it would have been just under 800.

14

Q.

Is that all the sworn deputies at the Sheriff's Office?

15

A.

Primarily, yes.

16

Q.

Where was your office physically located?

17

A.

My office was at the 19th floor of the Wells Fargo

18

building.

19

Q.

20

actually work in your office?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

11:13:37

ND

Did the sworn deputies that you just mentioned, did they
11:13:55

IE

Other than the command staff, no, they worked out in

various off-site locations.


Q.

FR

23

11:13:14

FO

10

22

11:13:06

So, for example, the deputies in the Human Smuggling Unit,

24

they wouldn't be located in the same physical building as you?

25

A.

No, sir.

They were located primarily out on Durango.

11:14:11

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Was your job primarily an office job?

A.

For the most part, yes.

Q.

How would you spend your -- most of your days?

A.

Mainly in meetings.

Q.

Okay.

and that type of thing?

A.

No.

Q.

I'd like to switch gears now and talk a little bit about

the training department.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Were you going out on patrol and doing interdiction

11

A.

Correct.

12

Q.

Is that the right word for it, "department," or is there

13

some other word I should use?

14

A.

Training division.

15

Q.

Division.

TH
E

Okay.

11:14:45

OF

And how many employees were in the training division


back in 2011-2012?

18

A.

As I remember, it varied between 10 and 15.

19

Q.

What was the function of the training division?

20

A.

21

for all members, including detention, and the academy training

ND

17

11:15:02

IE

They were responsible for training throughout the office

also.
Q.

FR

23

11:14:38

FO

was under you, correct?

22

11:14:25

That was one of the departments that

10

16

323

When you say responsible for training, what types of

24

training are we talking about?

25

A.

Can you give us an overview?

It would vary from basic training involving the academy

11:15:21

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

324

through any issues that might affect the day-to-day operations

of the Sheriff's Office, as in legislative enactments by the

state law, information that needed to go out about policy, that

type of thing.

Q.

thing?

A.

Yes, that was also included.

Q.

Was the training of the posse included in that as well?

A.

The approval and the management of the training was -- for

GB
OW
.C
OM

What about field training, firearms training, that type of

the posse did go through the training, but primarily the

11

enforcement support division did the actual training.

12

Q.

13

through the training division?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

How many different types of training programs would the

16

training division put on in a year, just an approximate number?

17

A.

18

over a hundred.

19

Q.

20

that were put together and final -- and made final by the

21

training division?

TH
E

OF

11:16:22

Oh, it was probably, including the basic programs, well

ND

Would you personally review all of those training materials

A.

No, sir.

Q.

Is there any way that you could have physically done that

FR

23

E learning programs, would those go

11:16:44

IE

22

How many -- oh.

11:16:07

FO

10

11:15:48

24

and met all of your other duties?

25

A.

No, there would be no way I could do that.

11:16:55

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

325

Q.

Describe for me -- we're going to talk about the specific

training materials that were being put together for the Court's

order in a moment, but I'd like you to describe the more

general process of how -- let's say there was a new law passed,

new criminal law passed.

how that information would be put out to the deputies and the

training materials put together for those deputies?

A.

worked in the administrative division.

GB
OW
.C
OM

What would be the typical process of

Typically, that would go through the policy people that

And if updated training

was needed, they oftentimes would contact the staff that worked

11

for, at that time, Seebert to develop new training.

12

Q.

13

statute, who would typically put together the initial training

14

materials, the substantive information?

15

A.

16

and the Best Management Practice to develop the training

17

itself, and then put out to the staff.

18

Q.

19

programs that are put together by the training staff?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

Who would -- let's say again, using this generic new

11:18:03

OF

Normally, the training staff would try to develop the needs

ND

Would you typically see the final product of these training

Not typically, no.


I assume that you had your own ongoing training

IE

Okay.

11:18:27

requirements?
A.

Yes, for my POST certification I did.

24

Q.

Is that typically one that you would see the final

25

product of the training materials?

FR

23

11:17:41

FO

10

22

11:17:16

11:18:39

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

326

A.

Typically, yes.

Q.

There was some E learning that was mandatory, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

program, if any, development of a typical training program?

A.

for instance, the training staff might develop some type of

need for firearms training that involves more tasking that can

be accomplished by the staff that's at the range, and so they

GB
OW
.C
OM

So what would be your role in a typical training

Normally, I didn't have much involvement in that.

However,

would reach out to other certified firearms instructors.

11

oftentimes, because it is a bureaucracy, people aren't willing

12

to give up their staff.

13

requirement outside of that training unit's possession, they

14

would come to me and I would try to get them -- get them the

15

resources they needed.

16

Q.

That sounds like a specific example that you're recalling.

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

So is it fair to say that you would get involved in these

19

putting together training materials or training programs only

20

when a need arose for you to assist in getting the resources

21

put together or some similar problem solved?

11:19:26

11:19:50

OF

TH
E

And so when it became a needs

ND

IE
A.

Typically, yes.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

And

FO

10

22

11:18:55

All right.

11:20:03

Let's turn now to the training program

24

that was -- was being put together in light of the Court's

25

preliminary injunction order, and I'd like --

11:20:23

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MR. COMO:

Does the witness have Exhibit 189?

BY MR. COMO:

Q.

evidence.

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Let's go to the last page -- or, I'm sorry, the

next-to-the-last page of Exhibit 189, please.

GB
OW
.C
OM

If you could turn, please, to Exhibit 189, which is in

Do you recognize this e-mail chain?

Let's start with the e-mail at the bottom there from


Lieutenant Sousa to Brett Palmer dated January 11, 2012.

10

Are you with me?

11

A.

Yes, sir.

12

Q.

Do you have an independent memory of this e-mail?

2012?

15

A.

No, I don't.

16

Q.

There's a number of people that are copied on the e-mail,

17

including yourself, Mr. Casey, and then Rollie Seebert.

18

you indicated previously that he was the director of training

19

at that time?

20

A.

21

Q.

11:21:26

And

ND

OF

14

Correct.

11:21:40

IE

Do those people that are on the cc list, do those all make

sense in terms of who would be typically involved in putting


together training materials on something of this nature?

FR

23

11:21:16

I'm sorry, of receiving this e-mail back in January of

TH
E

13

22

11:20:50

FO

327

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

And again, I'm not talking necessarily about any generic

11:21:58

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

328

training, but something like this where we're dealing with a

court order.

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

directing Sergeant Palmer to put together some training

scenarios and that he should be discussing them with Tim Casey.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Mr. -- Lieutenant Sousa's e-mail talks about -- is

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Was that consistent with your understanding of how this

December order was going to be put out in terms of training?

11

In other words, that somebody in the HSU would work


with Mr. Casey to develop the materials?

13

A.

The process typifies a training development.

14

Q.

Lieutenant Sousa's e-mail, at the last line of it, talks

15

about E learning.

16

That's an office-wide program, right?

17

A.

It was at the time, yes.

18

Q.

All right.

19

that after your meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, he said that he

20

wanted to only have HSU deputies trained.

21

understanding after the meeting, right?

11:22:54

OF

And there's already been testimony about it.

That was your

11:23:11

IE

ND

Now, on examination yesterday you testified

A.

Correct.

Q.

This seems different, in that they're talking about

FR

23

TH
E

12

22

11:22:30

FO

10

11:22:14

24

E learning and office-wide program.

Do you have any idea of

25

why -- can you explain that, the difference?

11:23:28

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

329

A.

Well, it's obvious -- obvious to me that the communication

is going out to put this out to -- to all the deputies.

Q.

had spoken with Lieutenant Sousa about getting together with

Mr. Casey to put together the training, right?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Is this consistent -- is this e-mail consistent with --

with your memory of how that was going to happen, essentially

consistent with it?

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Now, you testified yesterday that your -- that you

A.

Well, again, I don't have any independent recollection of

11

the -- the exact verbiage in here.

12

that conversation, yeah.

13

Q.

14

It would be consistent with

TH
E

Okay.

Now, when you gave that testimony originally, I think


you were actually interviewed by a monitor back in December

16

2014 about these events, and your -- the testimony that you

17

gave yesterday about the conversations you had with the sheriff

18

and Lieutenant Sousa is essentially the same testimony that you

19

gave back to the monitor in December 2014, right?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND
Correct.

11:24:43

IE

Did you have the benefit of being able to refresh your

memory with these e-mails when you were interviewed by the


monitor?

FR

23

11:24:25

OF

15

22

11:24:08

FO

10

11:23:53

24

A.

No.

25

Q.

Let's go now to the next e-mail.

We have to flip all the

11:24:50

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

way to the first page.

scenarios, and he directs them to Lieutenant Sousa, and then

Mr. Casey and Michael Trowbridge are copied on that.

And this is Sergeant Palmer's

Do you see that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

330

Goes on to the second page to see

the copies.

A.

Oh, yes, I see.

Q.

You were not copied on that e-mail, correct?

A.

No.

Q.

Is that typical, that you would not receive the actual

training materials at this stage in the process?

11

sort of the draft training materials that are being put

12

together?

13

A.

14

form.

15

Q.

Okay.

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

Again, this -- Sergeant Palmer's e-mail, we're not going to

18

go through the scenarios, but he does say in the first

19

paragraph that he's had the many conversations that he's had,

20

as well as taking into account the information from -- provided

21

to both of us from Tim Casey.

TH
E

OF

11:25:51

ND

24
25

So this isn't unusual in that sense, correct?

I'm sorry.

11:26:09

Do you see that?

It's on the top paragraph of the second

page of the e-mail before we start the actual discussion.

FR

23

11:25:32

I rarely saw any training as it developed in its written

IE

22

The draft --

FO

10

11:25:22

A.

Do you see what I'm referring to?


I'm sorry.

The question --

11:26:38

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

331

Q.

Do you see the language about him having conversations with

Lieutenant Sousa, as well as both of them having conversations

with Tim Casey about the order?

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Is that consistent with what you would expect

Sergeant Palmer to be doing at this stage in the process of

preparing these materials?

A.

I would believe that, yes.

Q.

Why would you expect him to be getting advice or review

GB
OW
.C
OM

from an attorney on something of this nature?

11

A.

12

need for a clear understanding for the staff about the order.

13

Q.

14

legal ruling?

15

A.

Oh, correctly, yes.

16

Q.

The next thing on this -- and we're now on the first page

17

of Exhibit 189.

18

Lieutenant Sousa to Mr. Casey dated January 24, 2012.

Largely because of the impact on the office and the -- the

OF

11:27:26

The next e-mail in this chain is one from

21

Q.

Yes.

11:27:45

And you are copied on that one, correct?

IE

A.

ND

Do you see that one?

20

A.

Yes.

Q.

And the other individuals that were copied on

FR

23

TH
E

Is it also because the order has legal issues and is a

19

22

11:27:06

FO

10

11:26:50

24

Lieutenant Sousa's initial e-mail to -- to Sergeant Palmer are

25

on there as well, correct?

11:27:57

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Correct.

Q.

In addition, Lieutenant Jakowinicz is on there.

GB
OW
.C
OM

332

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you know why Lieutenant Jakowinicz would have been on

there at that time?

A.

transferred.

Q.

And if you don't know, that's fine.

I can only speculate that was at the time that he was being

All right.

Well, he'll have an opportunity to tell us.

In this e-mail is it accurate to say that

Lieutenant Sousa's asking Mr. Casey to review the scenarios and

12

get back to him?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Is that what, again, what you would expect to have happen

15

with materials like this before they're put out to the

16

deputies?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Is this e-mail asking for any action on your part at this

19

time?

20

A.

21

Q.

11:28:35

ND

OF

TH
E

11

No.

11:28:44

IE

Do you recall ever receiving a response, being copied on

any response to Lieutenant Sousa's e-mail to Mr. Casey of


January 24, 2012?

FR

23

11:28:18

FO

10

22

11:28:04

24

A.

No, sir.

25

Q.

Let's turn now to Exhibit 156.

This has also been admitted

11:29:06

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

into evidence.

Do you have that in front of you, sir?

GB
OW
.C
OM

333

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Now, this is an e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to

Sergeant Palmer on March 27, 2012.

You are not copied on this e-mail, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

According to this e-mail, Lieutenant Sousa was still

waiting to hear back from Mr. Casey on the training scenarios,


right?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And it was only after that that they anticipated having you

13

and sergeant -- sorry, Lieutenant Trombi review the training

14

scenarios after they received Mr. Casey's feedback, correct?

15

A.

Correct.

16

Q.

Again, did you ever hear back from Mr. Casey or any other

17

attorney about these training scenarios at this time frame?

18

A.

I don't recall ever hearing back from him, no.

19

Q.

Was Lieutenant Sousa generally good about following up on

20

things?

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

11:30:22

11:30:39

He was excellent.

IE
Q.

How would you describe his overall work performance and

work ethic?

FR

23

11:30:04

FO

10

22

11:29:44

24

A.

He was very hard working, one of the best division

25

commanders that worked for -- for me and with me.

He was a

11:30:50

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

334

self-starter, and had experience in things like SWAT, so his

leadership skills were -- were very high.

Q.

had an assignment, that -- that he needed a lot of prompting to

do it?

A.

No.

Q.

Did you find that you could rely on him to follow through

and finish assignments that were given to him?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did you find that when you gave him an assignment, or he

Yes.

He was a self-starter and basically drove his own

vehicle when it came to leadership.

11

Q.

12

Exhibit 189, is it obvious to you that the task of preparing

13

the training materials and getting them ready was -- was

14

assigned to Lieutenant Sousa?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And did you believe that Lieutenant Sousa would carry out

17

that task without any need for follow-up from you?

18

A.

I would believe that, yes, sir.

19

Q.

Did anyone ever come to you and say:

20

problem.

21

training scenarios?

TH
E

From the e-mails that we've been looking at, including

Hey, we're having a

ND

OF

11:31:46

11:32:03

IE

Mr. Casey's not getting back to us about these

A.

No, I recall nothing like that.

Q.

If anyone had come to you and presented that as a problem

FR

23

11:31:30

FO

10

22

11:31:16

24

or an issue, what would you have done, sir?

25

A.

I would have brought the parties together to get the job

11:32:15

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

335

done.

Q.

been brought to your attention in the past?

A.

Oh, yes.

Q.

Did you ever -- was it ever your intent to not comply with

the Court's preliminary injunction order?

A.

No.

Q.

Did you ever direct anyone not to put on those training

materials?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Had you done that with respect to other issues that had

Yes.

A.

No, sir.

11

Q.

Do you believe that it's important to comply with a court

12

order such as that?

13

A.

Oh, very important.

14

Q.

Do you know why the E learning program that was being put

15

together was not finished?

16

A.

No, I do not.

17

Q.

Back in that time frame of 2012, did anyone bring to your

18

attention the fact that it was not finished?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

your assumption that the materials had been prepared?

TH
E

OF

ND

No.

After tasking Lieutenant Sousa with that assignment, was it

A.

I would believe that he would finish the task, yes.

Q.

Do you feel that you took reasonable steps to communicate

FR

23

11:32:59

11:33:11

IE

22

11:32:40

FO

10

11:32:26

24

the Court's order to the appropriate people within the

25

Sheriff's Office?

11:33:37

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

I do.

2
3

MR. COMO:

Nothing further at this time.

Chief.

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

Mr. Walker.

Thank you,

GB
OW
.C
OM

No questions, Your Honor.


Ms. Iafrate.

7
BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Chief Sands, you were deposed on April 1, 2015, in this

case, correct?

11

A.

Correct.

12

Q.

And in fact, on direct examination plaintiffs' counsel

13

showed you some of your transcript, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

I want to go back to that and ask you a couple questions

16

regarding the portion that they read to you.

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

First of all, let me show you the front page.

19

to be the page of your deposition, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

25

That appears

TH
E

ND

OF

11:34:29

Okay?

Yes.

11:34:54

IE

And then plaintiffs read to you starting at page 76,

starting at line 4 and said:

"Okay.

Did you ever discuss that

backup plan with the sheriff?"

FR
24

11:34:20

FO

10

23

11:33:48

CROSS-EXAMINATION

22

336

And your answer was:

prior to the injunction."

"No.

I discussed that with him


11:35:15

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

337

Correct?
A.

Correct.

Q.

So this wasn't a conversation about any sort of plan B

based on the injunction, correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Then it goes on to say:

that I had a problem with the -- with the premise of detaining

somebody that long to turn them over to the Border Patrol,

unless we were in close proximity of the Border Patrol.

GB
OW
.C
OM

"Okay."

Then you expressed:

"--

But to

drive somebody halfway across the state, I had a problem with

11

the detention part."

FO

10

12

So let me ask you this, Chief Sands:

14

A.

15

at the time, and that could mean going to a patrol unit itself.

16

At that time I -- I think that Casa Grande was the closest

17

location they normally were at, or down in the area south of

18

Gila Bend.

19

Q.

20

would be in minutes or hours from this location.

21

an understanding --

TH
E

Border Patrol from Phoenix?

Well, depending on -- excuse me -- where they were located

OF

11:36:08

Do you have

11:36:35

IE

ND

So your estimated time to get to Casa Grande or Gila Bend

A.

More like -- more like closer to hours than minutes.

Q.

So your problem was if it was a lengthy period of time to

FR

23

11:35:48

How far away was

13

22

11:35:24

24

transport someone, that was your problem, correct?

25

A.

Correct.

11:36:50

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

338

Q.

You now know that any detention longer than necessary

violates the preliminary injunction, whether it be short or

long, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

You didn't know that back when you received the preliminary

injunction, did you?

A.

again, please.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

No, you're con -- you're confusing me.

Okay.

Ask me the question

You received the preliminary injunction from Tim

Casey, correct?

11

A.

Correct.

12

Q.

And in fact, you had a conversation with him on the phone

13

shortly thereafter it was generated, correct?

14

A.

I had a conversation with him, yes.

15

Q.

Was it a telephone conversation?

16

A.

I can't remember exactly.

17

Q.

No one else was present for that --

18

A.

No.

19

Q.

-- conversation, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

I think it was.

ND

OF

11:37:34

Correct.

11:37:43

IE

And so based on your conversation with Tim Casey, you

didn't understand that any detention, whether short or long,


longer than necessary, violated the preliminary injunction at

FR

23

11:37:25

FO

10

22

11:37:06

24

that time, did you?

25

A.

Right.

11:37:55

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

339

Q.

But now that you're here today, you understand that any

detention longer than necessary, or longer than the usual

traffic stop, violated the preliminary injunction, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Was your conversation with Tim Casey the same day that the

preliminary injunction was generated?

A.

I believe it was, but I'm not sure.

Q.

On that day did you brief anyone regarding your

conversation with Tim Casey?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I can't recall doing that.

11

Q.

There was some discussion on direct examination regarding a

12

conversation that you had with Jack MacIntyre at the copier.


Do you recall that?

TH
E

13
A.

Yes.

15

Q.

So you had received the preliminary injunction from Tim

16

Casey, correct?

17

A.

Correct.

18

Q.

And tell me what was your interaction with Chief MacIntyre.

19

A.

My interaction was a discussion about me receiving the

20

preliminary injunction.

21

Q.

ND

11:39:20

IE

Did he talk to you about the substance?

A.

I don't recall that, no.

Q.

What was his role as far as the preliminary injunction is

FR

23

11:39:05

OF

14

22

11:38:35

FO

10

11:38:10

24

concerned?

25

A.

I'm really not quite sure.

11:39:30

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

340

Q.

did you receive it?

A.

it.

Q.

How about the content of the preliminary injunction?

A.

No, I don't believe we had a conversation about it.

Q.

Was that his job, to brief you on the substance of the

preliminary injunction?

A.

It might have been.

10

Q.

Why do you say "it might have been"?

11

A.

Outside of that, that particular item, I'm not sure if he

12

was told to come and brief me on it, or there were other issues

13

that he might come to me about and --

14

Q.

15

of the preliminary injunction, did he?

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

You don't know if Tim Casey briefed Chief Deputy Sheridan

18

on the preliminary injunction, do you?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

you go third, you kind of have to pick up the pieces as you go,

24
25

I remember him asking me if the deputies knew about

11:39:48

TH
E

FO

11:40:01

As you sit here today, he never briefed you on the content

OF

11:40:23

ND

I wasn't present, so I don't know that, no.


I want to back up and I'm kind of jumping all around.

When

11:40:56

so I apologize.

FR

23

Yes.

IE

22

Did you two discuss the preliminary injunction, other than

GB
OW
.C
OM

Let's go back to even before the preliminary

injunction when the Melendres case was filed.


Do you recall that?

11:41:11

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes.

Q.

What was your title at that time?

A.

I was -- I was a chief at that time, yes.

Q.

And was human smuggling one of your responsibilities --

A.

Yes.

Q.

-- Human Smuggling Unit?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Prior to the trial did you have conversations with Tim

Casey regarding the case?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes, I'm sure I did.

11

Q.

Were you deposed regarding the Melendres case?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

Were you the MCSO representative for the Melendres case?

14

A.

I don't recall being titled that position, but I was

15

coordinating the deputies to be deposed in the deposition

16

phase.

17

Q.

18

nearby during the trial?

19

A.

20

witness.

21

Q.

11:41:41

TH
E

OF

11:42:08

How about during the trial, did you sit at counsel table or

ND

I don't believe I did.

I believe I just testified as a

So did Tim Casey

IE

Was your testimony prepared with counsel?

11:42:23

prep you in prior depositions and also at trial?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

In the pretrial phase from you -- pretrial phase where you

25

said that you coordinated deputies, were you doing that to

FR

23

I can't remember distinctly, but --

11:41:28

FO

10

22

341

11:42:45

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

342

assist Tim Casey?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Prior to the trial were you ever requested to gather

documents as they relate to the Melendres matter?

A.

I don't believe so.

Q.

Were you ever requested to gather videos as it relates to

the trial?

A.

No, I don't believe so.

Q.

Are you aware that Chief Deputy Sheridan did not attend the

GB
OW
.C
OM

trial?

11

A.

I don't believe he did.

12

Q.

Are you aware that Chief Trombi did not attend the trial?

13

A.

I don't believe he did.

14

Q.

There was some discussion in your direct examination

15

regarding a drop-house scenario.

TH
E

Do you recall that?


A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And you said that you had a conversation with Sheriff

19

Arpaio regarding the drop-house scenario.

20

Do you recall that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Was anyone else present for that conversation?

A.

No.

24

Q.

Do you know whether or not Sheriff Arpaio discussed that

25

scenario with counsel?

FR

23

11:44:10

IE

22

ND

17

21

11:43:59

OF

16

11:43:21

FO

10

11:42:58

11:44:20

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

No.

Q.

I want to go back to the training scenarios.

going to go through them piece by piece, but can you put up

189?

And I'm not

GB
OW
.C
OM

343

Do you prefer a paper copy or on the screen?

A.

Either one.

Q.

Okay.

Let's just stop -- stop right there.

Chief Sands, as you sit here today, do you now recall

receiving these, or you don't have a recollection of receiving


them?

11

A.

No, I don't -- I really don't remember seeing them.

12

Q.

What happens sometimes when you look at the monitor is you

13

have to go back to the mic so that we can pick it up, okay?

14

A.

TH
E

Okay.

15

THE COURT:

If you need to, Chief, you can pull that

whole mic over by the monitor if it's easiest to look at the

17

monitor and speak at the same time.

OF

16

THE WITNESS:

11:45:35

Thank you, Your Honor.

18

BY MS. IAFRATE:

20

Q.

Sorry about that.

11:45:48

So even after reviewing them today, you don't recall

IE

21

ND

19

receiving these back in January 2012?


A.

No.

24

Q.

It wasn't a practice of yours to review training materials,

25

was it?

FR

23

11:45:20

FO

10

22

11:44:49

11:46:00

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

344

A.

No.

Q.

Did you ever at any time create training materials as a

result of the preliminary injunction?

A.

No.

Q.

There was some discussion both on direct and also with your

counsel regarding a conversation that you had with Tim Casey

regarding the preliminary injunction and how to disseminate

that information to the deputies.

Do you recall that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

To your knowledge, did Mr. Casey ever disseminate that

12

information to the deputies?

13

A.

No.

14

Q.

When you were a chief that was in the line of command

15

for what's the chain of command for HSU, when you first started

16

there, who was the first chief deputy in charge?

17

A.

Hendershott, Dave Hendershott.

18

Q.

And ultimately when he left, that's when Chief Sheridan

19

took over as interim?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND
Yes.

11:47:27

And then he ultimately was selected to handle that

position, correct?
A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Do you know what, if anything, happened as a result of

25

these training scenarios?

FR

23

11:47:08

IE

22

11:46:41

FO

10

11:46:17

11:47:49

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

No.

Q.

Did anyone tell you not to implement training scenarios?

A.

No.

Q.

There's been some discussion by a few people that have

testified regarding the fact that you and Chief Trombi both

supervised HSU.

GB
OW
.C
OM

345

Do you disagree or agree with that statement?

A.

say yes.

I want to say both, but yeah, I would -- I'd be inclined to

Q.

11

Lieutenant Sousa, would talk directly to you, correct?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

And there were times where you directly gave chief -- or,

14

excuse me, Lieutenant Sousa, I just promoted him -- gave

15

Lieutenant Sousa direct orders, correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

For example, there was a time where you asked

18

Lieutenant Sousa to do some research regarding whether there

19

could be traffic blocks regarding immigration, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

11:48:34

TH
E

ND

OF

Yes.

11:48:51

I don't recall that.

11:49:13

IE

There was other times where you asked Lieutenant Sousa to

research areas and get back to you directly, correct?


A.

Correct.

24

Q.

Chief Sands, you wrote a book after you left MCSO, correct?

25

A.

Yes.

FR

23

There were times where people from HSU, for example,

FO

10

22

11:48:11

11:49:55

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

346

Q.

Did you believe everything in that book to be true?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you say that Sheriff Arpaio wasn't intimately familiar

with the workings of the office, all aspects of the office?

A.

I did.

Q.

Did you also say that you believed that Sheriff Arpaio was

disconnected?

A.

I did, yes.

Q.

When you worked at the Sheriff's Office, did you directly

GB
OW
.C
OM

report to Sheriff Arpaio?

11

A.

Oftentimes I did, yes.

12

Q.

Did you see him almost daily?

13

A.

Almost daily, yeah, yes.

14

Q.

When you were at the Sheriff's Office working -- and let's

15

just stick around 2011-2012 -- was he at work every day?

16

A.

For the most part, yes.

17

Q.

And were you at work every day?

18

A.

For the most part, yes.

19

Q.

In 2011 and 2012, did you take a substantial amount of time

20

off?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

11:51:11

Towards the end of 2012 I -- I had developed a heart

problem, and I wasn't as involved in some of the duties that I


was prior to that.

FR

23

11:50:52

IE

22

11:50:32

FO

10

11:50:17

24

Q.

When Chief Sheridan took over -- when Chief Sheridan took

25

over as chief deputy, he took over the responsibilities that

11:52:00

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

347

were left behind by Chief Deputy Hendershott, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Isn't it true that during that transition period there were

a lot of ongoing disagreements with the County?

A.

I believe that to be true, yes.

Q.

There were lawsuits that were filed by the County

individuals, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

There were investigations that were occurring that involved

GB
OW
.C
OM

County members, correct?

11

A.

I believe so, yes.

12

Q.

And Chief Sheridan was tasked with untangling that knot,

13

correct?

14

A.

Well, I believe you're correct, yes.

15

Q.

To your knowledge, did HSU individuals directly report to

16

Chief Deputy Sheridan?

17

A.

I don't know.

18

Q.

When you received the preliminary injunction and talked to

19

Tim Casey, did you yourself talk to any deputies that it would

20

impact?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

11:53:41

I don't believe I did, no.


Did you develop a plan for those deputies to be instructed

on what the preliminary injunction entailed?

FR

23

11:52:55

IE

22

11:52:39

FO

10

11:52:20

24

A.

As far as developing a training plan or developing a

25

process?

11:54:03

Sands - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

348

Q.

Developing a process.

A.

I don't recall that exactly, but I've seen in subsequent

e-mails and communications that was being done.

Q.

By Lieutenant Sousa, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And Sergeant Palmer, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

But you yourself weren't involved in that process, correct?

A.

Correct.
MS. IAFRATE:

11

THE COURT:

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. YOUNG:

14

Q.

15

deposition, and I'd like to have that pulled up.

16

and 77 from your deposition on April 1, 2015.

TH
E

13

OF

Chief Sands, Ms. Iafrate showed you a page from your

Starting at line 4 you were asked:

18

discuss that backup plan with the sheriff?"

17

Your answer was:

It's page 76

"No, I had discussed that with him

20

prior to the injunction," and then you describe a scenario of

21

having to drive halfway across the state and you had a problem

IE

11:55:04

"Did you ever

ND

19

11:55:31

with that detention.

FR

23

11:54:39

Mr. Young.

12

22

11:54:20

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Okay.

Do you see that?

And then let's scroll down to line 8 on page 77, and

11:55:43

Sands - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

349

you said at line 18 of page 76 that your problem was detaining

somebody for that length of time without a response from the

agency that's going to take jurisdiction, and you talk about

the Border Patrol not being close by and driving them to

Nogales or to Casa Grande.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you said that once the 287(g) authority was taken away

in 2009 you thought that that was a problem, to take that much
time to transport someone to the Border Patrol, right?

11

A.

I personally believed that.

12

Q.

Now, this discussion, just to be clear here, that you

13

describe that you had with the sheriff about this issue you had

14

relating to the time of transport, that was before the

15

preliminary injunction, correct?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

deposition, which is page 65, starting on line 14.

TH
E

OF

11:56:45

Now, I want to direct you to another page of your

You were asked on that page, quote:

"At any time did

ND

19

you ever discuss with anyone the issue of what should be done

21

with someone who's expected of being -- who's suspected of


being an illegal immigrant, but who is determined not to be
chargeable with a state crime in light of the injunction?"

FR

23
24
25

11:57:12

IE

20

22

11:56:28

FO

10

11:56:13

And at line 22 of page 65 you answered:

discussion with the sheriff on that."

"I had a
11:57:36

Sands - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

350

Do you see that?


A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Okay.

you discussed yesterday, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And that's a different discussion from the one that you

described at page 76 and 77 of your deposition, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, in that one you discussed with him the drop-house

GB
OW
.C
OM

That's one of the discussions with the sheriff that

scenario, is that right?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Now, I would ask that we see page 66 of your deposition so

13

you can see the rest of your testimony.

14

just read it, starting at page 25:

TH
E

15

"Question:

All right.

And actually, I'll

And what did you and the

sheriff discuss about that issue?"


Answer, starting at line 2 at page 66:

18

"That my belief was that if somebody was stopped and

17

detained for a state violation and there was -- there was

20

nothing else to hold them on or arrest them on, then they

21

should be released.

24
25

IE

"Question:

11:58:39

Even if they were illegally in the

country?

FR

23

ND

19

22

11:58:22

OF

16

11:58:01

FO

10

11:57:46

"Answer:

Specifically to the analogy that I used with

him was a drop-house scenario.

And if we had no human

11:58:56

Sands - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

smuggling charges to bring about them, we had to let them go.

2
3

"Question:

Regardless of whether they were in the

country legally?

"Answer:

Correct.

"Question:

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And when you say let them go, did

you mean releasing them completely, or could that include

handing them over to ICE or the Border Patrol?"

8
9

351

Your answer was:

"I was -- I was specifically saying

that they had to be released.


"Question:

And not handed over to another agency?

11

"Answer:

12

Now, that was the discussion that you had with the

Correct."

sheriff after the injunction, is that right?

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

Okay.

16

dependence on the amount of time it would take to transport

17

someone to the Border Patrol?

18

A.

In the last scenario you just mentioned, or last, no.

19

Q.

During this discussion that you had with the sheriff after

20

the injunction, the one that we were just discussing, did the

21

sheriff seem to you to be understanding what you told him?

25

11:59:49

IE

ND

OF

Did your view at that time have any relation or

MS. IAFRATE:

12:00:11

Objection, Your Honor, foundation,

speculation.

FR
24

TH
E

13

23

11:59:35

FO

10

22

11:59:13

THE COURT:

I'll allow it for its limited value of

what the perception of Mr. Sands was.

12:00:26

Sands - Recross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

THE WITNESS:

352

I -- I don't think I can remember

exactly.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

believe that you can recall that he wasn't understanding what

you were telling him?

A.

Did the sheriff do or say anything that -- to lead you to

No.

8
9

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor, foundation,

speculation.
THE COURT:

Overruled.

11

MR. YOUNG:

Thank you very much, Chief Sands.

12

THE WITNESS:

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. COMO:

Thank you.

TH
E

Mr. Como.

Thank you, Your Honor.

I just have a few

OF

follow-up questions.

16
BY MR. COMO:

18

Q.

19

Ms. Iafrate's examination where she asked about whether you

20

were personally involved in the training materials that were

21

being put together.

IE

ND

Chief, I'd just like to focus you back to the very end of

12:01:13

Do you recall those questions?

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

What was your involvement in that?

25

A.

I had really no involvement in that other than -- than it's

FR

23

12:00:57

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

17

22

12:00:47

FO

10

15

12:00:40

12:01:21

Sands - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

353

apparent that I directed subordinate staff to develop that.

Q.

materials that you had any involvement at all?

you'd get staff rolling, get the ball rolling, and then let

them do their job?

A.

Correct.

Q.

So this was not unusual in that sense, correct?

A.

Correct.

MR. COMO:

No further questions, Your Honor.

you.
THE COURT:

12

Mr. Walker.

13

MR. WALKER:

14

THE COURT:

I have just a few, Your Honor.

Sure.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

17

Q.

18

mentioned that in the period when Chief Deputy Hendershott left

19

the office and Chief Deputy Sheridan was transitioning in,

20

there were a number of disputes between the Maricopa County

21

Sheriff's Office and the County.

12:02:04

OF

BY MR. WALKER:

IE

ND

Chief Sands, in response to questions from Ms. Iafrate you

12:02:20

Do you remember that?

A.

Yes, I do.

24

Q.

And approximately what time frame was that?

25

A.

Those disputes?

FR

23

12:01:54

Thank you.

16

22

12:01:47

Thank

TH
E

11

15

In other words,

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

And is that typical of what you would do for any training

12:02:32

Sands - Reross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

354

Q.

Yes.

A.

As my -- as I recollect it, I think somewhere around 2009,

I believe.

or I had none, actually, so I have a hard time recollecting

anything.

Q.

conducted some criminal investigations into the conduct of

certain members of the board of supervisors?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And do you recall whether any further those investigations

11

led to the filing of criminal charges against members of the

12

board of supervisors?

13

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I didn't have a lot of involvement in any of that,

Do you recall whether the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

FO

TH
E

Excuse me, I do.

I remember something about an

indictment coming down about Stapley, and that's -- and there

16

was some issue with Supervisor Wilcox, but I'm not really sure.

17

My memory doesn't serve me well on it.

18

Q.

19

of those criminal investigations and charges?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND

Do you know whether there were any lawsuits that came out

25

I believe there were, yes.

12:03:45

Do you know when those lawsuits were resolved?

IE
A.

FR
24

12:03:20

OF

15

23

12:03:06

I don't really remember, no.

14

22

12:02:50

No, I can't remember.


MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:

No further questions, Your Honor.


Thank you.

Ms. Iafrate.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

12:04:01

Sands - Reross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

deposition that talks about your belief following the

preliminary injunction.

355

Do you recall that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Chief, you just had read to you further portions of your

A.

Yes.

Q.

And did you tell any of the deputies regarding your belief

regarding the preliminary injunction?


MR. COMO:

Objection, form.

10

THE WITNESS:

11

THE COURT:

12

THE WITNESS:

13

THE COURT:
I rule on it.

Wait.

I'm sorry.

-- even when I'm slow you gotta wait till

Okay?

Thanks.

15

What's the nature of your objection specifically?

16

MR. COMO:
that's all.

THE COURT:
the question?

20

understood it.

12:04:52

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

21

THE COURT:

Okay.

I'll give you another pass at it.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

FR

23

You just want to tighten up

I'm not quite sure that the way you said it I

ND

19

22

All right.

18

12:04:41

The question just seemed too general to me,

OF

17

12:04:32

Chief, when there's an objection --

TH
E

14

I don't --

FO

12:04:15

24

Q.

Do you know that following the preliminary injunction, the

25

members of the HSU believed that they could hold suspects until

12:05:01

Sands - Reross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

356

an investigation was complete?

A.

I'm not sure.

Q.

Do you know that following the preliminary injunction the

HSU detectives believed that if they didn't have a state

charge, they could transport the individuals to ICE or Border

Patrol?

A.

I believe they were doing that.

Q.

And HSU was under you, correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Did you ever tell anyone at HSU that that violated the

11

preliminary injunction?

12

A.

I have nothing further.

14

THE COURT:

15

Next witness, as I indicated, I hope it's all right

TH
E

MS. IAFRATE:

Okay.

Chief, you want to step down.

with everybody, since we didn't begin till 11:00, we're going

17

to go till 1:00, take the lunch break between 1:00 and 2:00.
So ask for your next witness.

18

24
25

Your Honor, plaintiffs call Brian

Jakowinicz.

IE

THE COURT:

12:06:12

Yes.

MS. IAFRATE:

I need to go check to see if he's here.

I hope that because of the confusion of the changing of the

FR

23

MS. WANG:

ND

19

22

12:05:51

OF

16

21

12:05:36

I don't recall doing that, no.

13

20

12:05:24

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

witnesses -- I don't know, so -THE COURT:

Please check.

12:06:22

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 357

MS. IAFRATE:

Thanks.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

My apologies.

He is not here.

I have

Sousa waiting in the wings, and it was just an oversight

because --

6
7

THE COURT:

It's not a problem.

We'll take lunch

break right now and we will resume at 1 o'clock.

And you can get him here by 1 o'clock, I take it?

MS. IAFRATE:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

11

THE CLERK:

All rise, please.

12

THE COURT:

This is on the record, I just want to say

MR. COMO:

TH
E

that I apologize to you for being too brusque this morning.

14
15

I understand, and you've been on this case

a lot longer than I have.

No apology necessary.

(Lunch recess taken.)

17

THE CLERK:

session.

22

Court is now in

Please be seated.

Ms. Iafrate, over lunch the monitors came to me again

13:03:55

because there was a problem about information that they had


requested to do some sort of statistical analysis, since
they're here on their audit visit, they'd requested yesterday

FR

23

12:08:04

IE

21

THE COURT:

All rise, please.

ND

19
20

OF

16

18

12:07:21

FO

10

13

12:07:12

24

and was not provided.

The response was that you were handling

25

all Bates stamping and that they couldn't get access through

13:04:15

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 358

you.

But what I told them to do, and if you have any objection

let me know, it's apparently a tracks code manual that they

need from the department.

and quite common.

GB
OW
.C
OM

It's apparently government published

I indicated that they should note what it is, how many

pages it is, give them a copy, and then you can follow up with

a Bates stamped copy, because I realize you're very, very busy

this week.

Do you have any objection to me doing that?


MS. IAFRATE:

This is the first that I've heard of the

FO

10

request or the response, Your Honor, so I -- that's fine.

12

long as it's a publication that's public, I don't have a

13

problem.

14

THE COURT:

Right.

Well, as I indicated before, I

don't have any problem, of course, running these things through

16

you, and I realize you're busy this week, but we really need to

17

be very timely in responding to monitors' requests, and if it

18

gets to be an issue I'm going to raise it again.

S
IE

MS. IAFRATE:

24
25

We do.

13:05:17

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor, more housekeeping, actually,

on exhibits.

FR

23

Do we have Lieutenant Jakowinicz here?

ND

19

22

13:05:01

OF

15

21

13:04:45

As

TH
E

11

20

13:04:33

We now have stipulations by all parties to

admission of the following exhibits:


THE COURT:

That it?

164 through 167.


13:05:32

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 359

MR. YOUNG:

And we have, subject to Mr. Como's

objection, which he will state or restate, stipulations by

everyone as to the following exhibits, again, subject to that

objection --

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

The continuing objection I gave him this

MR. YOUNG:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I did want to mention, I said to him just

morning?

as we were going to off the record, and I don't think everybody


in the courtroom heard, I apologized to Mr. Como while we were

11

still on the record for being a little brusque with him this

12

morning.

13

make the record.

14

and you --

It wasn't merited.

And I did let him subsequently

TH
E

But I did want to apologize to you, Mr. Como,

15

MR. COMO:

16

THE COURT:

17

So subject to that continuing objection, what

22

24
25

13:06:12

OF

-- you do have the continuing objection.

S
ND

The following exhibits:

51, 52, 53, 54,

56, 59, 76, 77, 82, 90, 93 through 100, and 115.
THE COURT:

All right.

13:06:25

So any other documents,

Mr. Young?

FR

23

MR. YOUNG:

IE

21

No apology's necessary, Your Honor.

documents are there?

19
20

13:05:56

FO

10

18

13:05:49

MR. YOUNG:

I'm hoping there will be more as the week

goes on, but at this point no more.


THE COURT:

All right.

Thank you.

13:06:47

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Exhibits 164, 165, 166, and 167 are admitted.

(Exhibits Nos. 164-167 are admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

I am also admitting the following

exhibits, but I am noting Mr. Como's continuing objection in

which I believe the County joined.

56, 59, 76, 77, 82, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, and

115.

115 are admitted into evidence.)

We ready now for Lieutenant Jakowinicz?


I'm going to get it.

Are you calling -- who's calling him?

13

MR. SEGURA:

14

THE COURT:

17

THE CLERK:

22

B-r-i-a-n,

THE CLERK:

All right.

Raise your right hand.

13:08:08

(Brian James Jakowinicz was duly sworn as a witness.)

FR

23

Brian James Jakowinicz.

J-a-k-o-w-i-n-i-c-z.

ND

21

13:07:50

Would you state your full name for the

THE WITNESS:

IE

20

Lieutenant, please come

record and spell your first and last name.

18
19

All right.

OF

16

13:07:29

Plaintiffs call Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

TH
E

forward.

Jakowinicz.

Jakowinicz.

12

15

13:07:04

(Exhibits No. 51-54, 56, 59, 76-77, 82, 90, 93-100,

10
11

Exhibits 51, 52, 53, 54,

FO

360

THE COURT:

Please.
BRIAN JAMES JAKOWINICZ,

24

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

25

examined and testified as follows:

13:08:36

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

361

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

Good afternoon, Lieutenant.

A.

Good afternoon, sir.

Q.

Since there's been some confusion about the pronunciation

of your last name, could you just clarify it for us all?

A.

Jakowinicz.

Q.

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Lieutenant, when did you start at MCSO?


A.

1998.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

Okay.

16

stints that you've done throughout the agency so we can save

17

some time.

And you've been continuously employed with MCSO?

13:09:01

OF

And I'm just going to sum up what I understand of

You've been on Patrol, correct?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

A.

ND

SWATs, the personnel department, is that right?

13:09:11

Yes, sir.

IE
Q.

And you've been -- you now have the rank of lieutenant,

correct?

FR

23

TH
E

So about 17 years, right?

18

13:08:52

FO

10

22

13:08:43

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

And after you became lieutenant you did some time with the

13:09:21

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

362

training department, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And what was your position with the training department?

A.

Advanced officer training.

Q.

Okay.

correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And then after a few years of doing that you were actually

in property and evidence, right?

GB
OW
.C
OM

And then you went back to patrol as a lieutenant,

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

property and evidence?

13

A.

I was the division commander.

14

Q.

And what does that involve?

15

A.

The overall supervision of the division.

16

Q.

Does that involve the preservation of case evidence?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And you were there for -- and then you went back to the

19

training division, is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

13:09:55

Yes, sir.
Okay.

13:10:14

And then after a few months is when you joined the

Human Smuggling Division?


A.

Yes, sir.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

A.

April 2012.

FR

23

And what were your duties while you were with

IE

22

13:09:45

FO

10

13:09:35

And when did you start with HSU?


13:10:26

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

And what were your responsibilities when you started

with HSU?

A.

I was the lieutenant over the Human Smuggling Division.

Q.

Okay.

A.

There was the human smuggling units, there was two units,

and the criminal employment unit.

Q.

You oversaw three sergeants, right?

A.

Three supervisors.

acting as a supervisor, as a sergeant.

And who did you oversee?

Okay.

And you were with HSU until May of 2013, right?

11

A.

Yes, sir.

12

Q.

And why did you leave HSU?

13

A.

I didn't leave, necessarily.

14

course of direction changed and --

15

Q.

16

Investigations Division?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

Okay.

19

HSU, right?

20

A.

21

Q.

13:11:04

TH
E

FO

Q.

That's -- that's when the

13:11:20

OF

Is that when HSU became -- was subsumed into the Special

ND

Chief Trombi called you to ask if you would join

Yes, sir.

13:11:34

IE

And you asked for some time to think about it?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Why did you do that?

24

A.

I didn't know much about human smuggling.

25

some of the stuff I saw on TV.

FR

23

13:10:45

There were two sergeants, one deputy

10

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

Okay.

363

All I know is
13:11:47

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Okay.

You had concerns, right, about joining HSU?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Because of what you had seen on TV and in the media?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

smuggling operations, you perceived that they were seen as

controversial?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

364

And because you perceived that the MCSO's human

So you made some phone calls to call find more about

HSU, right?

11

A.

Yes, sir.

12

Q.

You called Lieutenant Sousa?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

And you were effectively taking over his position, correct?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

have any concerns, right?

18

A.

More or less, yes.

19

Q.

He said that this court case was in the past?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

13:12:22

ND

OF

And Lieutenant Sousa told you that you shouldn't

Yes, more or less, something like that.

13:12:39

IE

And a few days later you called Chief Trombi back, right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And you talked to him about these concerns as well, right?

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

13:12:14

FO

10

22

13:11:56

And he also reassured you that the lawsuits were in

13:12:51

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

the past, is that right?

MR. WALKER:

Objection, Your Honor.

It seems to me

GB
OW
.C
OM

365

when the witness is testifying to what other people told him,

what we need is the witness's recollection, not counsel's, and

I would suggest the leading questions --

All right.

Mr. Walker, I'm going to tell

you that I take one-word objections.

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

10

MR. WALKER:

11

THE COURT:
practice.

13

you one word.

What's your one-word objection?


Form.
Okay.

I like more specification than "form."

I'll give

You can specify what your objection is.

14

MR. WALKER:

Leading.

15

THE COURT:

All right.

As I've indicated, I am going

to give certain leeway to the plaintiffs in this case when they

17

call MCSO witnesses.

18

in the leading here a little bit.

OF

16

21
22

Okay?

Yes, Your Honor.


Ms. Iafrate.

MS. IAFRATE:

13:13:59

I was going to object to hearsay, Your

Honor.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

20

13:13:43

Still, I do believe that we need to rein

MR. SEGURA:

ND

19

13:13:26

When I -- you know, that's a state

TH
E

12

Okay.

FO

THE COURT:

13:13:14

THE COURT:

It doesn't seem to me like the questions

24

are being asked for the truth of the matter asserted, so --

25

because clearly, the litigation wasn't over.

13:14:13

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MR. SEGURA:

THE COURT:

That's correct, Your Honor.


I'm going to overrule the objection.

GB
OW
.C
OM

366

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

And what did Chief Trombi tell you about your concerns?

A.

He mentioned that the legal aspects of it were behind me,

that that wasn't going to be a concern, that that had all been

worked out.

things had slowed down and it's a good time to learn what's

going on and start a new position.

That it's a good time to come in now because

Q.

11

join HSU, is that correct?

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

to learn about this case because Chief Trombi told you that it

15

was in the past, right?

16

A.

Yeah, just -- yeah, yes, sir.

17

Q.

Had you heard about an investigation by the Department of

18

Justice involving HSU before -- before joining HSU?

19

A.

20

know specifics to anything.

21

me, legal issues going on.

13:14:50

TH
E

And then once you got to HSU, you didn't take steps

OF

13:15:05

I didn't

I knew there were legal -- excuse

13:15:32

I didn't know specifics at that

IE

ND

I knew that there were investigations going on.

time.
Q.

FR

23

And so obviously you then told Chief Trombi that you would

FO

10

22

13:14:29

So your understanding was those legal issues were in the

24

past, those were -- those had been taken care of.

25

A.

Yes, sir.

13:15:47

367

Q.

Lieutenant Sousa that there was an order, and that order was

for you to preserve certain e-mails, correct?

A.

"order" was used, but there was some sort of -- some of the, I

guess, fallout from the legal proceedings is that we had to

save e-mails, anything having to do with operations.

Q.

And you followed this order, right?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

Earlier you were telling me that the Human Smuggling

11

Division -- or actually, you have -- you referenced this, but

12

the Human Smuggling Division is actually comprised of two

13

units, right?

14

for criminal enforcement operations, right?

15

employment operations, right?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

primarily for doing interdiction operations?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

A.

He -- he said there was -- I don't know if

13:16:18

FO

13:16:33

Criminal
13:16:57

OF

TH
E

One for human smuggling operations and another

And the human smuggling squad is responsible

And what is an interdiction operation?

13:17:04

It was mostly roadside interdictions on the highways, on

known smuggling corridors.


Q.

FR

23

Right, yeah.

IE

22

When you started at HSU you -- you were told by

GB
OW
.C
OM

ND

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

And that's to identify what's called a potential load

24

vehicle?

25

A.

Yes, sir.

13:17:19

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

368

Q.

A vehicle that may be involved in human smuggling?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

suspected to be involved in human smuggling is stopped, the

driver and passengers would be questioned, correct, about

whether there is -- to determine whether there is in fact human

smuggling ongoing, correct?

And if a vehicle that's thought to be -- or

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

Objection, Your Honor, leading.

Overruled.

THE WITNESS:

I'm sorry.

Could you restate the

11

question?

12

BY MR. SEGURA:

13

Q.

14

stopped by an HSU member, the driver, and sometimes passengers,

15

would be questioned as to -- to determine whether there is in

16

fact human smuggling ongoing, is that correct?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And these questions would be asked to determine also if

19

there was a human smuggling conspiracy?

20

A.

21

Q.

13:18:07

ND

OF

TH
E

When a potential load vehicle is identified and

Yes, sir.
Okay.

13:18:25

And in doing so you would ask, HSU members would ask

passengers if they, for example, paid money to be smuggled into


the United States?

FR

23

13:17:53

IE

22

Sure.

13:17:39

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

And to be transported within the United States?

13:18:40

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Sometimes HSU members were only able to develop probable

cause of human smuggling as to some passengers, correct?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Yes, sir.

MS. IAFRATE:

Could we have a time frame?

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

While you were at HSU.

THE COURT:

369

Okay.

I'll accept the clarification.

Do you understand the question, Lieutenant?

11

THE WITNESS:

12

THE COURT:

13

THE WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

All right.

You may answer.

TH
E

I'm sorry, can you ask that again?

14

BY MR. SEGURA:

15

Q.

16

human smuggling ongoing, would only develop probable cause of

17

human smuggling as to some passengers, right?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

But not as to all passengers, that -- is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

13:19:13

ND

OF

Sometimes HSU members, in investigating whether there was

Yes, sir.

13:19:33

IE

So while you were at HSU, when there were no state charges

to hold someone and there was suspicion that they were present
unlawfully, the practice was to continue holding them and seek

FR

23

13:19:05

FO

10

22

13:18:57

24

to transfer them to ICE, correct?

25

A.

Yes, sir.

13:19:57

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

And that was pursuant to -- that was pursuant to what's

referred to as the LEAR policy?

A.

Snow's ruling in May of 2013, but yes.

Q.

the LEAR policy, right?

A.

though.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I had never heard of it called the LEAR policy until Judge

So knowing what you know now, that practice was pursuant to

Correct.

at HSU, right?

12

A.

Until May 2013, yes, sir.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

December 2011 order?

15

A.

16

them.

17

essentially.

18

Q.

19

people in violation of that order, correct?

TH
E

What is your understanding now of the Court's

That if you don't have state charges, you need to release

13:20:41

OF

You can't hold them for ICE or Border Patrol,

But while you were at HSU, HSU members continued holding

ND

20

MR. COMO:

Objection, Your Honor.

IE

my continuing objection.
THE COURT:

This is subject to

13:21:05

I won't keep standing up.

Thank you.

Overruled.

BY MR. SEGURA:

FR

23

13:20:22

FO

And that policy was in effect the entire time you were

11

22

13:20:11

I didn't hear it referred to as the LEAR policy,

Fair enough.

10

21

370

24

Q.

While you were at HSU, HSU members continued holding people

25

without state charges because they believed them to be

13:21:20

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

371

undocumented, correct?

A.

would say, please hold that person.

Q.

changes -- how interdictions were conducted continued without

any changes while you were at HSU?

A.

sir.

Q.

It was after speaking with ICE, yes, sir.

They

GB
OW
.C
OM

Yes, sir.

So interdictions you would say continued without any

Until 20- -- until Judge Snow's ruling in May of 2013, yes,

You were at a meeting -- you were at a meeting with the

sheriff in which he discussed what to do if ICE refused to take

11

someone who MCSO couldn't arrest on state charges but were

12

believed to be undocumented, is that right?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

Okay.

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

That's the Wells -- that was in the Wells Fargo building?

19

A.

To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

deposition and then ask you a question about it.

TH
E

And this was while you were at HSU?


13:22:33

OF

And this was in the Sheriff's Office?

ND
Okay.

IE

FR

23

13:22:15

FO

10

22

13:21:46

I'd like to play you a video clip from your

13:22:42

If you could get the first clip, please.


"Question:

What are you going to do if you don't have

24

state charges for someone, but ICE refuses them.

25

respond?"

Did you
13:23:05

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

"THE WITNESS:

Well, I don't recall responding.

remember him posing the question.

he said, "You call Border Patrol.

sheriff.

I kind of looked at him, and

GB
OW
.C
OM

372

That's my order.

I'm the

I want you calling Border Patrol."


MR. SEGURA:

Thank you.

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

exchange occurred with the sheriff?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

And after the sheriff gave you this direction, what did you

11

say?

12

A.

I just said okay.

13

Q.

Because he's your boss, right?

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

And knowing what you know now, that direction was contrary

16

to the Court's December 2011 order?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

While you were at the training division --

Lieutenant, is that an accurate description of how this

FO

TH
E

OF

13:23:49

20

preceding your time with HSU, correct?

21

A.

13:24:10

Yes, sir.

IE
Q.

And while you were there, do you recall receiving an e-mail

including training scenarios that Sergeant Palmer had

FR

23

13:23:27

You were at the training division immediately

ND

19

22

13:23:20

24

developed?

25

A.

I believe it came up in my first deposition --

13:24:23

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Okay.

A.

-- showed it to me.

Q.

So you're now aware that you received that, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

MR. SEGURA:

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

So could we show the witness

Exhibit 189, which has already been admitted.

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

number 165691 at the bottom.

It's the first page of the

11

A.

I'm not sure, say again.

12

Q.

The first page of the e-mail within this exhibit.

13

A.

Page 1 of 5?

14

Q.

Yes.

15

A.

Okay.

16

Q.

And at the bottom do you see an e-mail from

17

Lieutenant Sousa in which you are cc'd?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

And why do you believe you received this e-mail?

20

A.

21

Q.

13:25:05

13:25:16

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

e-mail.

I took it as a heads-up of something that could be coming.

13:25:33

IE

And why do you think you were given a heads-up?

A.

I was in training at the time.

Q.

And do you remember any follow-up to this e-mail while you

FR

23

13:24:34

I would like you to turn to the page that has the

10

22

373

24

were at the training division?

25

A.

I don't.

13:25:53

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

training scenarios?

shortly after?

A.

what you're referring to.

Q.

And do you recall receiving another e-mail about these

GB
OW
.C
OM

Either right before you started at HSU or

I think that was in the first deposition as well, if that's

Well, let's -- let's take a look.

MR. SEGURA:

which has been admitted into evidence.

BY MR. SEGURA:

Pull up Exhibit --

Q.

And do you prefer a paper copy, or are you --

11

A.

I prefer a paper copy.

12

Q.

Thank you.
THE CLERK:

14

THE WITNESS:

It's easier for me.

(Handing exhibit to witness.)

TH
E

13

13:26:26

FO

10

BY MR. SEGURA:

16

Q.

17

the cover page.

18

March 27th, 2012, in which you are cc'd?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

ND

Thank you.

15

started at HSU?

13:26:47

OF

And if I could you turn, it's the first page after -- after

Do you see an e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa on

IE

And do you recall if you received this e-mail after having

A.

No, I didn't start until April.

Q.

All right.

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

13:26:11

Could we show the witness Exhibit 156,

22

374

13:27:01

But it was shortly before?

And this also includes the training scenarios that

13:27:15

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

375

Sergeant Palmer -- well, I will tell you, because this version

is redacted, that this also includes the training scenarios

developed by Sergeant Palmer.

you recall the training that Sergeant Palmer developed

scenarios for ever having occurred while you were at HSU?

A.

Not to my knowledge, sir.

Q.

Did anyone -- knowing what you know now, would this

training have changed how HSU operated?

A.

If it was put out correctly, understanding the order, yes.

10

Q.

It would have prevented people from being detained without

11

state charges on the basis of their immigration status?

12

A.

13

believe.

14

Q.

15

conducted, is that right?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

And while you were at HSU you received a lot of

18

commendation, correct, for your work?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

And I just want to ask you if

FO

13:28:23

TH
E

Yeah, if it was put out correctly, yes, it would have, I

To your knowledge, that training was never -- was never

OF

13:28:39

ND

I was told "good job," yeah.


And who were you told "good job" by?

13:29:02

My bosses; everybody I would deal with.

Q.

Would Sheriff Arpaio ever say "good job"?

A.

Yes, sir.

24

Q.

Would say "keep up the good work"?

25

A.

More or less, yes, sir.

FR

23

13:27:49

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

13:29:18

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Okay.

And what did you take that to mean?

A.

That I was doing a good job, what was expected of me.

Q.

Okay.

"good job," that indicated, obviously, approval of what your

division, the Human Smuggling Division, was doing, right?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did you believe that because you were being told

MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

MR. SEGURA:

I'm asking for his understanding, Your

Honor.

THE COURT:

10

I'll allow it.

THE WITNESS:

Could you restate the question?

11

BY MR. SEGURA:

12

Q.

13

work," your understanding was that the sheriff approved of the

14

work that was being conducted by HSU.

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And did Chief Trombi also commend your work while you were

17

at HSU?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

And you also took that as approval of the work that your

20

subordinates were doing within HSU?

21

A.

13:30:18

ND

OF

TH
E

By telling you "good job" or things like "keep up the good

Q.

13:30:38

Yes, sir.
In fact, when you were brought on, Chief Trombi told you

that he wasn't asking you to fix anything, right?

FR

23

13:30:01

IE

22

13:29:39

FO

376

24

A.

Yes, sir.

Correct, sir.

25

Q.

And I believe you told me during your deposition that

13:30:51

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

377

Chief Trombi told you that in fact, you should not change

anything, is that right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

That things were like that for a reason, like they were for

a reason?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And so you felt no need to change anything because of this

positive feedback, right?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

Could you explain to me after an interdiction event what

11

documentation is produced by HSU -- by HSU members?

12

A.

Documentation such as what?

13

Q.

After an interdiction event certain records are produced,

14

correct?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

What types of records are produced after an interdiction

17

event?

18

A.

A departmental report would be completed.

19

Q.

And what does a departmental report include?

20

A.

21

people involved, a brief synopsis on the first page, but then

13:31:05

13:31:40

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

13:31:15

13:31:48

the entire story would be attached to the back, you know, in


the narrative.

FR

23

It would have a face sheet with a time, location, the

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

If there's anything else it would be included

24

in that departmental report.

25

Q.

Are shift summaries included in the departmental report?

13:32:11

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

378

A.

Not generally.

It's not part of the report.

Q.

Are shift summaries produced after an interdiction event?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

summaries indicate if anyone was arrested?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And the charges on which they're arrested?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And those shift summaries, while you were at HSU, would

GB
OW
.C
OM

And those shift summaries would -- would those shift

also indicate if anyone was transferred to ICE because there

11

were no state charges to hold them, right?

12

A.

13

yes.

14

Q.

15

there were people who were transferred to ICE who could not be

16

held because there were no state charges?

17

A.

18

summary every time, I can't say that.

19

Q.

20

the duties of HSU members to produce those shift summaries?

21

A.

TH
E

13:32:57

I can't tell you that was documented in the shift

Yeah.

But sometimes that was not documented, although

OF

Okay.

ND

And are those shift summaries produced as -- is it part of

Yes, sir.

13:33:17

It would be the supervisor, the sergeant, that

would do a case summary -Q.

Okay.

24

A.

-- or a shift summary, rather.

25

Q.

And would these -- would these shift summaries be sent by

FR

23

I can't say that happened every time, but it did happen,

IE

22

13:32:44

FO

10

13:32:30

13:33:29

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

379

e-mail to anyone?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And who would they be sent to?

A.

It was a long link of different people that got that.

don't know them all off the top of my head, but it was a lot of

people.

Q.

Chief Sands?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Chief Trombi?

10

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

Would they sometimes include the public information

12

officers at MCSO?

13

A.

BY MR. SEGURA:

16

Q.

17

information drawn from shift summaries and departmental

18

reports, is that correct?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

December 2011 order through 2013?

13:34:26

OF

MCSO has created spreadsheets that compile certain

And those have been compiled from the date of the Court's

IE
A.

13:34:35

Actually, I think it starts -- it's the entire month of

December, so nothing was missed.

FR

23

13:33:53

FO

15

22

13:33:48

(Pause in proceedings.)

ND

14

TH
E

Yes, sir.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did the whole month of

24

December '11 all the way through 2012 and 2013.

25

believe it was all of 2013 as well.

We did I
13:35:01

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

I would like to show you what has been marked as

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 207, and it is not admitted into evidence

yet.

THE CLERK:

THE WITNESS:

MR. SEGURA:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Okay.

380

(Handing exhibit to witness.)


Thank you.

I actually have a -- if you don't mind, I

have a larger version, with the Court's permission.

spreadsheet that's a little difficult to read on an 8 by 11.

I'm happy to show -THE COURT:

11

MR. SEGURA:

It's a

To all counsel?

Well, I only have two copies, but counsel

have seen this.


THE COURT:

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

THE COURT:

Please show it to her.

16

THE COURT:

Mr. Como, do you want to go take a look at

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

word.

22

IE

FR

THE COURT:

13:36:03

Too small for me to read.

Any objection?

MS. IAFRATE:

21

I don't know until I see it, Your Honor.

Yeah.

ND

19

23

OF

it, please?

18

20

Any objection?

TH
E

13

17

13:35:50

FO

10

12

13:35:33

Yes, Your Honor.

I can't do it in one

13:36:39

I'll give you three.

MS. IAFRATE:

24

THE COURT:

25

MS. IAFRATE:

Three?

Objection --

You want to see me at sidebar?


Your Honor, this is generated from a

13:36:59

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

disk that can be shown.

complete as it relates to the actual exhibits that were

disclosed.

MR. SEGURA:

THE COURT:

This is, I believe, illegible and not

Your Honor --

I have an objection.

objection is foundation.

unless you lay more foundation.

MR. SEGURA:

THE COURT:

11

MR. SEGURA:

You may.
Thank you.

version?

13
14

May I show the witness the exhibit to lay

THE COURT:
version?

15

MS. IAFRATE:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. SEGURA:

May I show him the large

No.

OF

All right.

13:37:42

Thank you.

(Handing exhibit to witness.)

BY MR. SEGURA:

19

Q.

20

spreadsheets you said were produced, compiled information from

21

shift summaries, I believe you said yes, correct?

18

ND

Before we get to that exhibit, the spreadsheet -- and

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And that includes number of people arrested, correct?

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

And if noted, the number of people who have been turned

FR

23

13:38:01

IE

22

13:37:32

Any objection to him showing the larger

TH
E

12

13:37:20

I'm going to sustain the objection

the foundation?

10

I will take it the

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

381

13:38:13

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

382

over to ICE because there were no state charges, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

spreadsheets?

A.

didn't put the spreadsheet together.

spreadsheet.

Q.

But you yourself had someone produce the spreadsheet?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And do you believe this is an accurate compilation, to your

11

knowledge, of the shift summaries for this period of time?

12

A.

13

I could be -- could be off on that, but I thought -- 'cause we

14

had talked about doing the entire year, just the month or what.

15

I thought they did the whole month, but it might have been just

16

from the date of the order forward.

17

Q.

18

try on this one before I get to the next two.

22

13:38:36

I didn't create the

FO

13:38:52

13:39:16

OF

TH
E

I thought they did the whole month of December.

And I would like to show you -- well, let me just

Okay.

Your Honor, plaintiffs request that

ND

MR. SEGURA:

Exhibit 207 be admitted into evidence.


MR. COMO:

13:39:36

This one's subject to my continuing

objection, Your Honor.

FR

23

One of my sergeants was tasked with this.

Yes, sir.

IE

21

And you were tasked with producing these

I didn't have the -- the firsthand -- I oversaw it.

19
20

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. IAFRATE:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. WALKER:

Foundation, Your Honor.

Do you have any objection to make?


I join both of the objections of counsel.

13:39:50

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

THE COURT:

All objections are overruled.

is admitted.

The exhibit

GB
OW
.C
OM

383

(Exhibit No. 207 is admitted into evidence.)

THE COURT:

Is this a summary simply for the HSU?

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

I do have a question before we go on.

Yes, sir.

Do you have any reason to believe that

patrol divisions generally were given any different instruction

with respect to turning people over to Border Patrol or ICE?


THE WITNESS:

11

THE COURT:

No, sir.

But this only -- and if they did turn

somebody over to Border Patrol or ICE, would HSU be made aware

13

of that?

TH
E

12

14

THE WITNESS:

15

THE COURT:

Not necessarily.

All right.

So this is only a compilation

OF

THE WITNESS:

18

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you.

BY MR. SEGURA:

20

Q.

21

criminal employment squad, is that correct?

ND

19

IE

And Lieutenant, similar compilations were made for the

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

13:40:28

of what HSU is aware of from its operations?

17

22

13:40:17

FO

10

16

13:40:02

13:40:36

And so I'd like to focus your attention, and

24

hopefully we can zoom in on the column that I'm interested in.

25

There's a column towards the right that says Arrests,

13:40:53

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

it says total -- it says Turned Over to ICE.

Do you see that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

384

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And the bottom row are the -- the total numbers for

those -- for the rows above, is that correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And the total number turned over to ICE from -- it appears

here, at least -- 12-23-2011 to the end of the year 2011 is 14,

correct?
A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

And that number represents the number of people who were

12

held without state charges to be turned over to ICE, is that

13

correct?

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

Okay.

TH
E

Thank you.

13:41:39

I'd like to also show the witness Exhibit 208.

OF

16

And I

also have a large -- well, if we can zoom it in on the -- on

18

the laptop, is that -- is that okay, Your Honor?

17

THE COURT:

22

Thank you.

I think that might be an even

13:41:59

better approach.
BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.

FR

23

MR. SEGURA:

IE

21

That works fine for me.

ND

19
20

13:41:30

FO

10

13:41:13

So this --

24

MS. IAFRATE:

25

MR. SEGURA:

Your Honor, this is not in evidence.


This has not been admitted --

13:42:08

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

THE COURT:

I'm not publishing it.

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Thank you for the clarification, but I

didn't intend to authorize publication.

the witness and counsel --

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

Understood.

Merely showing it to

This spreadsheet is the compilation of information drawn

11

smuggling squad for the year 2012, correct?

12

A.

I don't have anything to reference.


THE COURT:

14

BY MR. SEGURA:

15

Q.

You need to give him the next page.

TH
E

13

Will you turn to the page after the cover, please?


THE COURT:

13:42:49

And then you're going to have to enlarge

OF

16

it so he can see it.

THE WITNESS:

Okay.

18

BY MR. SEGURA:

20

Q.

21

A.

ND

19

It's a large version, you can flip through it.

13:43:08

I can make this out, I think, I can probably --

IE
Q.

Okay.

Is it your understanding that this spreadsheet is a

compilation similar to the spreadsheet I just showed you for

FR

23

13:42:28

FO

from shift summaries and departmental records from the human

22

13:42:17

-- so that we could --

10

17

385

24

the year 2012?

25

A.

Yes, sir.

13:43:19

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

And that was compiled in the same manner as the spreadsheet

for the year -- for the -- for the time period of December

23rd, 2011, to the end of 2011?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

6
7

MR. SEGURA:

Exhibit -- Plaintiffs' Exhibit 208 be admitted into evidence.


THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

Any objections?

Overruled.

really --

12

MR. COMO:

Foundation, Your Honor.

Exhibit 208 is admitted.

I was just making a continuing objection to

TH
E

(Exhibit No. 208 is admitted into evidence.)

15

BY MR. SEGURA:

16

Q.

17

If we could look at the same column, Turned Over To ICE.

13:44:03

OF

Sir, I'd like you to turn to the last page on this exhibit.

Can you make out that number in the total at the


bottom?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND

19

18

Yes, sir.

Well, not really.

I can take a guess.

13:44:17

IE

What is your guess?

A.

Pretty blurry.

Q.

And that number, in your understanding that

FR

23

13:43:45

this spreadsheet as with the prior one.

14

22

FO

10

13

13:43:33

Your Honor, plaintiffs request that

11

GB
OW
.C
OM

386

It's either a 90 -- 97 or a 90.

24

number represents the number of individuals held without state

25

charges to be turned over to ICE during the year 2012, correct?

13:44:37

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Thank you.

You can put that away.

GB
OW
.C
OM

387

And my last spreadsheet which I would like to show you

is exhibit -- Plaintiffs' Exhibit 209.

And if we could go to

the first page after the cover and zoom in on the year.

A.

Okay.

Q.

Can you make out those numbers?

of the events in the spreadsheet?

A.

Can you make out the dates

It looks like it starts in January 2013, but I can't see it

very, very clear.

11

Q.

12

compilation of shift summaries, departmental records, for the

13

year 2013, similar to the previous two spreadsheets I've shown

14

you?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

in which the previous two spreadsheets that I have shown you?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

Okay.

22

TH
E

OF

ND

Your Honor, plaintiffs request that

13:46:01

Exhibit 209 be admitted into evidence.

24
25

13:45:47

And was this spreadsheet compiled in the same manner

MR. SEGURA:

FR

23

Is it your understanding that this spreadsheet rep -- is a

IE

21

13:45:29

FO

10

20

13:45:01

admitted.

MS. IAFRATE:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:

Same objection, Your Honor, foundation.

Same objection, Your Honor.


All right.

Overruled.

The exhibit is
13:46:12

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

388

(Exhibit No. 209 is admitted into evidence.)


BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

that I've referenced you before, Turned Over to ICE, and zoom

in.

Could we go to the last page of this exhibit to the column

Turned Over to ICE?

A.

I can't.

It's just a big smudge.

THE COURT:

I think there's been an attempt to enlarge

MR. SEGURA:

Your Honor, may I show the witness an

enlarged version in paper format?


THE COURT:

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

MR. SEGURA:

16

And I apologize, Your Honor.

OF

13:47:09

I did not know the

No objection, Your Honor, just for

ND

demonstrative purposes.
THE COURT:

Well, I've already admitted the exhibit.

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

21

This exhibit is fine, Your Honor.

13:47:26

I'm

talking about the enlarged.

FR

23

(Handing exhibit to counsel).

MS. IAFRATE:

20

22

If I could see it, Your Honor.

resolution of the electronic copy.

18
19

Any objection?

TH
E

13

17

13:46:58

FO

it again.

11
12

13:46:24

Can you make out the total underneath the column of

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

24

BY MR. SEGURA:

25

Q.

Thank you.

Can you make out the number at the bottom of the column,

13:47:32

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Turned Over to ICE?

A.

Unfortunately, I can't.

Q.

Okay.

total of the number of individuals turned over to ICE?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And those individuals would have been held without state

charges, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

In violation of the Court's December 2011 order?

10

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

Thank you.

12

spreadsheets.

FO

That number at the bottom of that column would be a

You can put that away.

15

responsibilities over HSU was to keep the sheriff informed of

16

HSU operations?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And the sheriff would be briefed by you and Chief Sands

19

prior to any operation, is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

13:48:22

ND

OF

your understanding was that part of Chief Sands's

Define what kind of operation.

13:48:44

IE

When would the sheriff be briefed by you prior to an

operation of HSU?
A.

FR

23

13:48:03

Your understanding -- turning to a different topic,

14

22

13:47:53

And no more

TH
E

13

GB
OW
.C
OM

389

When a CEU investigation was concluding with search

24

warrants.

25

Q.

Okay.

And Chief Sands would be part of that briefing?

13:49:01

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

390

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

The sheriff would obviously have the ultimate say as to

whether an operation goes forward, is that correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

The sheriff could shut down an operation?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Did you believe the sheriff had a particular interest in

HSU operations?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

Why do you believe that?

11

A.

Everything we did resulted in a media release.

12

Q.

Okay.

13

sheriff had a particular interest in HSU operations?

14

A.

Can you restate that?

15

Q.

Sure.

16

particular interest in HSU operations, you said because every

17

time there was a press release, correct?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

And why do you believe that indicates that the sheriff had

20

a particular interest in HSU?

21

A.

FO

13:49:27

TH
E

And why do you believe that because of that, the

I guess I'm not -13:49:52

OF

When I asked you why you thought the sheriff had a

ND

Q.

13:50:05

Okay.

You had some conversations with the sheriff about

these press releases, correct?

FR

23

13:49:11

It resulted in media attention.

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

I had spoke with him, yes.

25

Q.

The sheriff would call you about a press release?

13:50:32

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

391

A.

He has.

Q.

Okay.

A.

It was towards the end of my time in HSU.

make sure they weren't putting something out -- he would read

it to me and I would say:

location.

16 people were arrested and it was 15, I would clarify the

numbers, it was for clarification.

Q.

So it was to ensure that the press releases were accurate?

10

A.

That was my role was -- that's what I took it as.

11

Q.

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

No, no, no.

Please don't say our

That could be a safety type thing.

Thank you.

He would call to

Or if they said

14

prior to your first deposition, correct?

15

A.

No, sir.

16

Q.

Or searching for your -- any documents that you may have

17

related to these contempt proceedings prior to your first

18

deposition, is that correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

for these contempt proceedings?

13:51:31

OF

TH
E

search your e-mails relating to these contempt proceedings

ND

Correct, sir.
13:51:50

IE

Shortly before -- you were deposed three times, correct,

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And shortly before your second deposition, members of the

FR

23

13:51:10

Turning to a different subject, you weren't asked to

13

22

13:50:53

FO

12

And what was the purpose of that?

24

compliance division of MCSO and someone from Ms. Iafrate's

25

office searched your e-mails, correct?

13:52:08

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

392

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And they found documents responsive to plaintiffs' -- they

found documents relevant to these contempt proceedings, is that

correct?

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

what was relevant.

BY MR. SEGURA:

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

Do you know?

You turned over documents to the compliance -- the

11

court compliance division and someone from Ms. Iafrate's

12

office, correct?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

And during your third deposition you testified that there

15

were additional e-mails between you and MCSO's former counsel,

16

Tim Casey, that related to these contempt proceedings, correct?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And you -- after that third deposition, you took it upon

19

yourself to e-mail those to the compliance division and

20

Ms. Iafrate?

21

A.

13:52:33

13:53:06

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

Q.

13:53:31

To Ms. Iafrate's office.

IE
Q.

FR

23

13:52:25

I know I turned stuff over; I don't know

10

22

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Thank you.
When you joined HSU, Lieutenant Sousa asked you to --

24

indicated that there was a requirement that you were to save

25

e-mails relating to HSU operations?

13:53:47

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

393

A.

Operational e-mails is what I was told.

Q.

Okay.

e-mails about?

A.

That's what I remember them saying, operational e-mails.

Q.

So things like casual jokes that were circulated over

e-mail, would those be part of the category of e-mails you were

supposed to save?

A.

That wouldn't be an operational e-mail.

Q.

Switching to a different subject, when you -- when you

arrived at HSU, you were told that one of the deputies at HSU

11

had a number of complaints that had been made against him,

12

correct?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

That was Deputy Armendariz?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And Lieutenant Sousa told you this?

17

A.

I believe so, yes, sir.

18

Q.

And that caused some concern for you, right?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

13:54:35

Who was his supervisor at the time?

13:54:44

Who?

Q.

Who was Deputy Armendariz's supervisor at the time?

A.

I don't recall -- I can't say exactly that day if it didn't

FR

23

13:54:23

IE

22

13:54:05

FO

10

ND

GB
OW
.C
OM

Is that the only category that you were told to save

24

change or not, but I believe it was Sergeant Trowbridge.

25

Q.

And did you instruct Sergeant Trowbridge to do anything in

13:55:10

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

regards to your concerns about Deputy Armendariz?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

What did you instruct him to do?

A.

I instructed him to document all of the complaints that

came in.

6
7

MR. SEGURA:

I'd like to show the witness Exhibit 133,

THE CLERK:

(Handing exhibit to witness.)

BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.

Do you recognize this document?

11

A.

Yes, sir, I do.

12

Q.

What is it?

13

A.

This is a memo from Sergeant Trowbridge to myself dated

14

February 13th, 2013.

15

Q.

MR. SEGURA:

No objection.

MR. COMO:

MR. WALKER:

ND

19
20

No objection, Your Honor.

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

IE

21

No objection.

13:56:25

133 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 133 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. SEGURA:

FR

23

Plaintiffs request that exhibit --

Plaintiffs' Exhibit 133 be admitted into evidence.

18

22

13:56:11

OF

16

TH
E

Thank you.

13:56:04

FO

10

17

13:55:23

which has not been introduced into evidence.

8
9

GB
OW
.C
OM

394

24

Q.

And is this one of the reports that Lieutenant Trowbridge

25

sent to you pursuant to your direction?

13:56:35

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

395

A.

I'm sorry, could you restate that?

Q.

Sure.

that you instructed Sergeant Trowbridge to produce about Deputy

Armendariz?

A.

departmental report, it's not a departmental report.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

This was a memorandum, it wasn't -- if you're saying

Fair enough.

8
9

Is this one of the reports that we just discussed

Is this a -- one of the memoranda that you instructed


Sergeant Trowbridge to produce about Deputy Armendariz?
A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

And did you -- this memorandum includes a summary of the

12

complaints made against Deputy Armendariz, is that correct?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

And you sent this to your boss, Chief Trombi, is that

15

correct?

16

A.

17

along with this, and it went to Chief Trombi.

18

Q.

ND

Could we show the witness Exhibit 118,

which has been admitted into evidence.


THE CLERK:

13:57:39

(Handing exhibit to witness.)

BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.

Could we go to the first page after the cover page.

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

Is this the memo that you were just describing that you

FR

23

TH
E

MR. SEGURA:

IE

22

I did a memo myself, a cover memo that went

Okay.

13:57:20

OF

Yes, sir.

19

21

13:57:04

FO

10

20

13:56:48

13:58:05

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

396

also sent to -- that you also drafted and sent to Chief Trombi?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And this outlined your concerns about Deputy Armendariz?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And so you did this on your own initiative, is that

correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

What did you want Chief Trombi to do about Deputy

Armendariz?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I asked for a transfer out of the Human Smuggling Division.

11

Q.

And what was his response?

12

A.

He had called me on the phone and said that he was going to

13

transfer him, and asked for Deputy Armendariz to come up to his

14

office.

15

to his office.

16

Q.

And what happened after that?

17

A.

Deputy Armendariz went up there and had a discussion with

18

Chief Trombi.

19

somehow later on in the day and Chief Trombi said I -- said

20

something to the effect of:

21

Put Charley 10-8.

TH
E

OF

13:58:54

ND

And I got a call or a text or a phone call

I know what you're going to say.

Q.

And what does that mean?

A.

It's police for we're going to put him on the street, put

FR

23

Asked me to arrange for Deputy Armendariz to come up

13:59:11

IE

22

13:58:30

FO

10

13:58:16

24

him to work.

25

Q.

So he would continue with HSU, correct?

13:59:28

Jakowinicz - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

397

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And you didn't agree with this, right?

A.

Correct, sir.

Q.

Did you think Chief Trombi handled this properly?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

Why's that?

A.

His sergeant and lieutenant lined out pretty clearly some

problems that we saw, probably more firsthand, of some of the

issues that we saw that needed to be addressed, and the remedy

GB
OW
.C
OM

that we -- that I suggested ultimately was not -- not followed.

11

Q.

You wanted him transferred out of HSU, right?

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

And would you characterize HSU as a, would you say a

14

specialty unit?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

out on patrol?

18

A.

19

more freedom.

20

Q.

21

more closely supervised?

TH
E

OF

All specialty units are going to have generally

ND

A.

FR

23

14:00:30

And would you say that HSU members have more freedom

Yes, sir.

Okay.

IE

22

14:00:09

FO

10

13:59:44

So if a deputy were on regular patrol would they be

14:00:46

Yes, sir.
MR. SEGURA:

Thank you.

24

I have no further questions now, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT:

Do you want to go first, Ms. Iafrate?

14:00:55

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MS. IAFRATE:

Yes, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION

GB
OW
.C
OM

398

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Good afternoon, Lieutenant.

A.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

Q.

You started out your direct examination talking about your

background.

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

While you were in -- one of the areas where you landed

Do you recall that?

during your career was training, correct?

11

A.

Yes, ma'am.

12

Q.

You talked about advanced officer training.

13

you were in charge of?

14

A.

Yes, ma'am.

15

Q.

What does that mean?

16

A.

It's continuing training for police officers.

17

training after the police academy.

18

required to complete a certain amount of training every year.

19

Q.

20

create curriculums?

21

A.

TH
E

14:01:55

It's

Police officers are

OF

That's what

ND

In your position as advanced officer training did you

Q.

14:02:15

I did not.
How were you assigned a task when you were assigned to

advanced officer training?

FR

23

14:01:46

IE

22

FO

10

14:01:36

24

A.

When I was there, it was Commander Seebert, and he would

25

tell me, Hey, we need to get going on this, or I'd like to see

14:02:35

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

399

you doing this.

Q.

own without first getting a directive?

A.

Not that I recall, no.

Q.

Do you know when you were made aware that you were moving

from training to HSU?

A.

It was just before my transfer date.

Q.

Within days?

A.

I don't recall; probably.

10

Q.

Is that typical that you'd get short notice and then you're

11

transferred to another unit?

12

A.

13

start.

14

Q.

Well, you knew that you were asked to go to HSU, correct?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And there was a time frame where you were allowed to make

17

calls to inquire whether that was something that you thought

18

suited you, correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

FO

14:03:17

14:03:31

OF

TH
E

Sometimes you can get a little bit more head

ND

Yes.

How long of a time frame did you get in order to do that?

14:03:42

I think it was about three days from when -- three, four,

five days from when Chief Trombi had called me to when I spoke
to him and said yes, I'd be interested in coming over.

FR

23

It can be.

14:02:50

IE

22

Would you ever -- would you ever create training on your

24

Q.

I want to show you what was shown to you in direct

25

examination.

It's Exhibit 189, which is in evidence.

14:04:06

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MR. SEGURA:

199?

400

189.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Do you still have that in front of you?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

Okay.

see at the bottom of 5691 it shows an e-mail chain where you

are also cc'd on it, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And it's highlighted on the screen also, if that's easier.

So go down -- it's five pages.

I want you -- do you

Do you see your name there?

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Well, it's enlarged on the screen.

13

there?

14

A.

Yes, ma'am.

15

Q.

When you received -- first of all, do you recall receiving

16

this e-mail string?

17

A.

18

deposition, the first time I remember seeing it.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

It's not highlighted on here, but --

14:05:00

OF

TH
E

Do you see your name

ND

Have you had an opportunity to review this e-mail string?


I don't know that I have or if I haven't.

14:05:21

Why don't you take a moment and look at it and see if you

recall if you have read this e-mail string before.


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And that was the first time you recall seeing it?

25

A.

That I remembered seeing it, yes.

FR

23

14:04:49

I think the first time I ever recall seeing this was in my

IE

22

14:04:26

I think I read this during one of the depositions.

14:05:41

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

401

Q.

In this e-mail string were you tasked to do anything with

these scenarios?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Do you recall Director Seebert ever directing you to start

developing training with these scenarios in mind?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

When you transferred over to the human smuggling unit, how

did you learn what they were doing?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I spoke with -- most of it I got from Lieutenant Sousa,

speaking with him.

11

Q.

Did he brief you on situations?

12

A.

He gave me an overview of what the unit did.

13

Q.

Did you ever go out to conduct interdictions?

14

A.

Did I ever go out --

15

Q.

Yes, sir.

16

A.

-- prior to HSU or after?

17

Q.

While you were in HSU did you go out to interdictions?

18

A.

I did go to the road at the beginning to see what they do.

19

Q.

Did you yourself make any traffic stops?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

14:07:13

No, ma'am.

14:07:25

IE

Were you close enough so that you could hear what

individuals were doing?


A.

The air I would hear them, is that what you mean?

24

Q.

No.

25

interdictions, were you close enough to the traffic stop that

FR

23

14:06:53

FO

10

22

14:06:10

When you're out on the road and you're witnessing the


14:07:41

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

402

you could hear the two -- hear the officer and the individuals

talking?

A.

enough that I could hear people talking.

could hear the words of what they were saying, but I could hear

people talking.

Q.

you weren't involved in them personally, correct?

A.

No, ma'am.

10

Q.

And you didn't hear personally what questions were commonly

11

being asked out on the street?

12

A.

No, I didn't hear them, no.

13

Q.

When did you first read the preliminary injunction in this

14

case?

15

A.

My best recollection of reading it was May of 2013.

16

Q.

Did someone give it to you?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Who?

19

A.

I don't recall who it came from.

20

Q.

21

A.

I remember being on scene of one of them and it was loud

I don't remember if I

So as far as the common practice of these interdictions,

14:08:40

OF

TH
E

FO

14:08:10

ND

Did you read it?

14:09:01

Yes.

Q.

Did you understand it?

A.

I thought I did.

24

Q.

So let's explore that a moment.

25

your understanding of the preliminary injunction different than

FR

23

14:07:58

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

As you sit here now, is


14:09:15

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

403

when you read it in May 2013?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

was your understanding of what the preliminary injunction

stated?

A.

the May 2013 injunction.

Q.

injunction?

GB
OW
.C
OM

So let's go back to when you first read it.

What

I think I might be confusing the preliminary injunction for

Okay.

So let's go back.

Did you ever read the preliminary

A.

I did.

11

Q.

When?

12

A.

I don't recall the date.

13

with it.

14

Q.

From whom?

15

A.

I don't recall who it is now.

16

Q.

Did you understand it?

17

A.

Like I said, I thought I did.

18

Q.

Okay.

19

to be back when you first read the preliminary injunction?

20

A.

21

charges and then turn them over to ICE or Border Patrol.

14:09:47

OF

TH
E

I know I did receive an e-mail

ND

So what's different now versus what you believed it

Now it's clear that you can't detain anybody without state

14:10:05

IE
Q.

When you had that conversation with Sheriff Arpaio that was

discussed during your -- during your direct examination, at

FR

23

14:09:40

FO

10

22

14:09:28

24

that time you believed that it was still appropriate that you

25

could detain someone and turn them over to ICE or Border

14:10:32

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Patrol, correct?
MR. SEGURA:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Objection, Your Honor, leading.

Lieutenant --

wait until I answer.


THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

10

question.

11

rephrase?

Sorry, sir.

Can I ask a question while you're thinking of your

MS. IAFRATE:

13

THE COURT:

Sure.

TH
E

To the best of your recollection, when did

THE WITNESS:

It was towards -- I think it was the

14:10:58

OF

latter part of 2012.

17

THE COURT:

Thank you.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

19

Q.

20

what the discussion was about.

21

A.

18

ND

During that conversation there was discussion -- tell me

I'm sorry.

14:11:18

Can you restate that again?

IE
Q.

The conversation that the judge and I have been discussing

with you, with Sheriff Arpaio that you testified to on direct,

FR

23

14:10:47

that conversation with Sheriff Arpaio occur?

15

22

14:10:40

I am going to ask you to rephrase the

12

16

Oh, I'm sorry.

-- when there's an objection, you gotta

14

Yes, ma'am.

GB
OW
.C
OM

FO

404

24

do you recall that conversation?

25

A.

Yes.

14:11:29

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Okay.

There was some conversation with the sheriff

regarding what?

A.

briefing him for something.

would be up there to talk to the sheriff was to brief him on

something.

the sheriff just came up with the question.

Q.

sheriff were when CEU investigations were almost complete,

GB
OW
.C
OM

405

I don't recall what the conversation was.

We were up there

That would be the only time I

So we were up there briefing him on something and

You said that the only briefings that you did for the

correct?

11

A.

Yes, ma'am.

12

Q.

CEU is different than interdictions, correct?

13

A.

Yes, ma'am.

14

Q.

So did this conversation regarding turning people over to

15

ICE, did it deal with CEU?

16

A.

It may have; I don't recall.

17

Q.

This conversation that you recall with the sheriff where he

18

posed the question to you and then said that you would turn

19

people over to Border Patrol, do you recall that?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

14:12:21

Yes, ma'am.

14:12:49

IE

At that time you believed that was valid, despite the

preliminary injunction, correct?


A.

FR

23

14:12:08

FO

10

22

14:11:43

I had no other -- I had no reason to believe that what we

24

were doing was wrong, no.

25

Q.

The spreadsheets, 2007, 2008, and 2009, that's not the

14:13:04

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

complete document that was generated by your unit, correct?

A.

We haven't done a 2007, '8, and '9.

Q.

No, excuse me.

A.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Q.

Exhibit No. 2007, 2008, 2009.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Those are the exhibit numbers.

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:
because I confused you.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

That's why you're confused, Lieutenant,


Sorry.

Q.

So Exhibit 207, 208, and 209.

11

A.

Okay.

12

Q.

Now I've forced you to do it.

13

A.

Okay.

14

have --

15

Q.

Okay, Lieutenant.

16

A.

Okay.

17

Q.

We don't even need to go to the document.

It's 207, 208, and 209.

TH
E

I have a 2000- -- or 207.

I have a 207.

I don't

ND

Exhibit 2007, correct?


THE COURT:

2- --

14:14:29

BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.

207.

A.

Yes, ma'am.

24

Q.

That's not the complete database that was generated by your

25

unit, was it?

FR

23

14:14:15

OF

Just listen to my question.

IE

22

I have 2007, and I've got a big one of --

You were shown a sheet with information on it,

20
21

14:13:50

FO

10

19

14:13:39

I think you're talking 207, 208, 209.

18

406

14:14:35

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

407

A.

Correct, ma'am.

Q.

There are more documents that are associated with that face

sheet, correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

It's all the supporting documents, correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

You didn't create the database, did you?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

You don't know how it was compiled, do you?

10

A.

Only roughly.

11

Q.

Did you participate in its creation?

12

A.

No, ma'am.

14

creation?

THE WITNESS:

16

THE COURT:

17

THE WITNESS:

18

THE COURT:

OF

Did you oversee its creation?


Yes, sir.

You believe it's accurate to the extent

ND

THE WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

14:15:27

BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.

What did you do to determine whether it was accurate or

not?

FR

23

14:15:18

IE

22

Yes, sir.

that we've seen summaries here today?

20
21

14:15:00

Let me ask, Lieutenant, did you direct its

15

19

14:14:44

FO

THE COURT:

TH
E

13

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

I spoke with the two sergeants.

There's one that's heading

25

up that project, and then the one that is supporting him, and I

14:15:39

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

408

talked to them and asked them what steps they'd gone through to

complete -- to compile the information.

I've asked --

basically that, and we talked about it.

We stayed in touch and

talked about what's in there, how do we know what's in there?

Where are we getting our information?

we doing?

Q.

correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

10

Q.

He's a smart guy?

11

A.

I believe so.

12

Q.

What he does?

13

A.

Yes, ma'am.

14

Q.

And he created this as a result of the constant requests

15

for documents, correct?

16

A.

Yes, ma'am.

17

Q.

In the Melendres case, back in 2012 and before, was your

18

unit ever asked to gather videotapes?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

14:16:00

14:16:21

OF

TH
E

FO

14:16:10

ND

Before when, now?

Q.

2012.

14:16:39

Not that I am aware of.


Well, I'm asking you:

Were you ever asked to gather

videotapes prior to 2012 regarding the Melendres matter?

FR

23

What kind of checks are

The person that created this database is Sergeant Waylon,

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

No, ma'am.

25

Q.

Were you asked to gather documents prior to 2012 regarding

14:16:56

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

the Melendres matter?

A.

Not that I recall.

Q.

The search that was done recently of your computer, that

was done just a few weeks ago, correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

Was that the first time that anyone asked you to look at

your e-mails as it relates to Melendres?

A.

I believe so, yes, ma'am.

Q.

When the group from CCID and my office went out to your

GB
OW
.C
OM

409

office to do the search of your computer, were you reading the

11

e-mails as you were gathering them?

12

A.

Not specifically, no, ma'am.

13

Q.

You weren't reading them for substance?

14

A.

Some of them I would bring them up, glance at it and say,

15

yes, this is a shift summary, this will go.

16

cursory, very, very quick.

17

Q.

18

saying that, you were saying -- you were pulling it up and then

19

saying "this will go."

20

to manipulate your e-mails when you were going through them.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

14:17:57

ND

Explain with words what you were doing


14:18:14

One of the CID members that showed up, he had given a

memory jump drive, so that was plugged in.

And he had set up a

way to where you could drag and click the e-mails over.

FR

23

It was very, very

So you were doing something with your fingers as you were

IE

22

14:17:38

FO

10

14:17:21

24

Q.

And is that what you were doing?

25

A.

Yes, ma'am.

14:18:34

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

410

Q.

And then that jump drive was given to someone from CCID?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

You weren't given a copy of what was on that jump drive,

were you?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Did you ever have a meeting with Chief Sands regarding

training?

A.

I don't recall a meeting.

Q.

Did you ever attend informal training done by Chief Palmer

GB
OW
.C
OM

for the squads?

11

A.

No, ma'am.

12

Q.

Do you know, did that actually occur?

13

A.

Pardon me?

14

Q.

Did that occur?

15

A.

Not that I know of.

16

Q.

You testified on direct that you had never -- while you

17

were in HSU, you never heard of the LEAR policy, correct?

18

A.

Yes, ma'am.

19

Q.

While you were at HSU, or any time before or after that,

20

were you ever instructed to delete videos from your group?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

14:20:40

No, ma'am.

Q.

Were you ever told to delete e-mails from your group?

A.

No, ma'am.

24

Q.

Were you ever instructed to retain videos while in HSU?

25

A.

Yes, ma'am.

FR

23

14:19:54

IE

22

14:19:45

FO

10

14:18:44

14:20:54

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Were you told to retain e-mails while you were in HSU?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

Did you ever directly supervise Deputy Armendariz?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Did you ever watch him do any interdictions?

A.

Not that I recall.

Q.

Did you ever review any videos of his stops?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

MS. IAFRATE:

May I have just a moment?

(Pause in proceedings.)

11

BY MS. IAFRATE:

12

Q.

13

as Exhibit 118, and it was shown to you on direct examination.

TH
E

Do you recall generating that memorandum?


A.

Yes, ma'am.

16

Q.

Could you go up.

14:22:46

OF

15

17

This is a memo from you to Chief Trombi, correct?


A.

Yes, ma'am.

19

Q.

And in the first paragraph it talks about citizen

20

complaints, correct?

21

A.

ND

18

14:23:02

If you give me a second I'll review it.

IE

FR

23

14:21:53

Lieutenant Jakowinicz, I'm showing you what is in evidence

14

22

14:21:22

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

411

(Pause in proceedings.)
THE WITNESS:

24

BY MS. IAFRATE:

25

Q.

Yes, ma'am.

And this is a memorandum that you generated?

14:23:28

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

412

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

You yourself couldn't unilaterally transfer Deputy

Armendariz, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

But in your memorandum to Chief Trombi, you indicate that

although there are -- many contacts are recorded and obviously

policy violations of excessive force, abusive language, or

theft are not observed.

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

What did you mean by that?

The videos that I had seen, it didn't -- we didn't see any

of those things.

11

saw.

12

Q.

13

make the determination to transfer Deputy Armendariz, correct?

14

A.

Yes, ma'am.

15

Q.

And in that you indicate that you did not observe the

16

policy violations that were complained of, correct?

17

A.

TH
E

OF

Correct.

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

Mr. Walker.
CROSS-EXAMINATION

14:24:50

IE

BY MR. WALKER:
Q.

Good afternoon, Lieutenant.

A.

Good afternoon, sir.

24

Q.

My name's Richard Walker.

25

Maricopa County government embodied by the board of

FR

23

14:24:16

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

ND

19

22

14:24:05

So you are generating an e-mail to the person that could

18

21

There weren't clear policy violations that we

FO

10

20

14:23:39

I represent that portion of the


14:25:00

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

413

supervisors, the county manager, and the appointed officers who

work under their supervision.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I want to ask you a little more about the

spreadsheets, Exhibits 207, 208, and 209.

you about the creation of the database.

specifically about the spreadsheets.

Ms. Iafrate asked

I want to ask you

Do you know who created those spreadsheets, the ones

that you were asked about and looked at during your testimony

on direct and Ms. Iafrate's examination?


A.

Yes.

11

Q.

And who was that?

12

A.

Sergeant Demetrius Waylon Gonzalez.

13

Q.

And you know that he produced those how?

14

A.

We would -- we would talk about it.

15

would show me the progress.

16

Q.

17

from which these spreadsheets were created, did you enter any

18

of that information yourself?

19

A.

No, sir.

20

Q.

21

entered?

TH
E

14:25:56

OF

The information that was entered into the database

A.

Yes.

14:26:11

Not all of it, but yes, I was there when -- as people

worked on it.

FR

23

Go to the computer; he

Were you physically present when the information was

IE

22

Okay.

14:25:39

FO

10

ND

14:25:21

They worked long, long hours on it.

24

Q.

Well, I don't mean just present in the building, but were

25

you actually looking over their shoulders as they were entering

14:26:29

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

414

data?

A.

stuff in before.

Q.

In the -- in this database?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Would you take a look at Exhibit 207.

that up there?

A.

2011 year?

Q.

No, Exhibit 207.

10

A.

Right, I have that.

11

Q.

Yes.

12

A.

I've got two.

13

Q.

And you believe that to be a spreadsheet that was created

14

by Sergeant Waylon, right?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And the judge asked you some questions about your

17

impressions of the accuracy in the information in Exhibits 207,

18

208, and 209.

FO

14:27:05

14:27:19

OF

TH
E

I've got a small and a large.

Do you remember that?

A.

21

Q.

Yes, sir.

14:27:35

As you sit here today, are you personally able, based on

IE

20

your personal knowledge, to vouch for the accuracy of the


numbers in those spreadsheets?

FR

23

I'm just confirming 2011 is the year.

Sorry.

14:26:41

Do you still have

ND

19

22

Yes.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I've been seated next to Sergeant Waylon when he's put

24

A.

No, sir.

25

Q.

I want to ask you now, changing gears a little bit, about

14:27:45

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

415

the interdictions that you said you participated in.

And if I

understood you correctly, there were just a few of them, and it

was at the beginning of your tenure in HSU, is that right?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

When did you participate in interdictions?

A.

Oh, you're talking about myself?

Yes, you're correct.

there a few times with the -- with the squads to see how they

did things.

GB
OW
.C
OM

When was I out there?

It was at the beginning.

I went out

Q.

What exactly is "a few times"?

11

A.

Five, six times, probably.

12

Q.

Sorry?

13

A.

Five or six times, maybe.

14

Q.

Okay.

15

arrived at HSU?

16

A.

Around that time, yes, sir.

17

Q.

In any of those interdictions were you in a position to

18

witness personally whether people were identified as being

19

potentially in the country illegally, but as to whom there was

20

no probable cause for -- to believe that they'd been involved

21

in criminal activity?

24
25

TH
E

And that was in April-May 2012, shortly after you

OF

14:28:39

ND

IE
A.

I'm sorry, could you clarify?

Q.

Sorry.

FR

23

14:28:20

FO

10

22

14:28:05

14:29:01

It was a little convoluted.

The interdictions that you personally witnessed, were

you in a position in any of those interdictions to personally

14:29:16

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

416

see/hear that people in those interdictions -- there were

people in those interdictions who were identified as to whom

there was probable cause that they'd been involved in criminal

activity?

A.

asking.

Q.

to ICE or Border Patrol who were apprehended, but as to whom

there was not probable cause to believe they had been involved

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm still not -- I'm still not understanding what you're

We've been -- we've been talking about people who were sent

in criminal activity or were involved in criminal activity, but

11

were then sent to ICE or Border Patrol because they were

12

suspected as being in the country illegally.


Do you understand?

TH
E

13
14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

Okay.

16

you personally see that happen?

17

A.

18

watch what was going on.

19

think of any where it wasn't Spanish being spoken, and I don't

20

speak Spanish, so the context of what was being spoken I

21

wouldn't understand.

OF

In the interdictions you personally witnessed, did

14:30:14

When I was there I was basically there as a supervisor to


I can't

ND

I wouldn't know the context.

14:30:39

IE
Q.

So do you have that personal knowledge whether any of the

individuals apprehended in the interdictions you witnessed were

FR

23

14:29:59

FO

10

22

14:29:40

24

sent on to ICE or CBP because they had not been identified as

25

people involved in criminal activity?

14:31:00

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

If I'm understanding your question correctly, yeah, people

would end up going to ICE if we didn't have state charges.

Q.

you personally witnessed.

A.

Oh, I don't --

Q.

Did that happen in any of those instances?

A.

I don't recall specifically to those instances.

Okay.

But I'm asking specifically about the interdictions

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

No further questions, Your Honor.


Thank you.

Mr. Como.

11

13

Q.

Good afternoon, Lieutenant.

14

A.

Good afternoon, sir.

15

Q.

Ms. Iafrate asked you whether you ever attended any

16

informal briefing put on by Sergeant Palmer about the Court's

17

order.

TH
E

BY MR. COMO:

OF

Do you recall that question?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

shortly after the Court issued its order in December 2011.

ND

25

IE

Sergeant Palmer testified that he provided that briefing

14:31:52

You weren't at HSU at that time, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Correct?

FR
24

14:31:42

18

23

14:31:26

CROSS-EXAMINATION

12

22

14:31:15

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

417

Correct, sir.
Okay.

I'd like to take you back to Exhibit 156, please.

14:32:13

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

believe you have that one.

This is the e-mail chain that ends with the e-mail

GB
OW
.C
OM

418

dated March 27, 2012, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Let's go back to the second page of that exhibit, please.

Middle of the page, there's the e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to

Tim Casey on which you were copied dated January 24, 2012?

A.

January 24th, 2012, from Sousa -- or from Sousa to Casey?

Q.

Yes.

10

A.

Yes, sir, I see it.

11

Q.

All right.

12

were still in training, right?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

Okay.

15

this document we have, it appears to be part of an e-mail

16

string that is attached to this March 27 e-mail, would you

17

agree?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

Okay.

20

first page now -- you were copied on that e-mail from

21

Lieutenant Sousa to -- to Sergeant Palmer, correct?

14:33:06

TH
E

And that's the one that you received while you

Now, that appears to be from this e-mail -- from

OF

14:33:16

It's all part of one e-mail string?

ND

So on March 27, 2012 -- and we can go back to the

A.

Yes.

Q.

And this -- when you received that e-mail would have been

FR

23

IE

22

14:32:41

FO

14:33:35

Yes.

24

shortly before you took over the HSU unit?

25

A.

Yes, sir.

14:33:54

Jakowinicz - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

419

Q.

that there was some unfinished business regarding the training

scenarios?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And if you had scrolled down to the prior e-mails, you

would see that that unfinished business had been pending for

approximately two months?

you were copied on, January 24.

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

Let me just -- on January 24, Lieutenant Sousa asked Tim

11

Casey to weigh in on the scenarios, right?

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

And then on March 27, Lieutenant Sousa's reporting to

14

Sergeant Palmer, We still haven't heard from Tim Casey,

15

essentially, right?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

When you took over HSU, did you do anything to move along

18

this unfinished business that you had inherited?

19

A.

20

asking about it.

21

Q.

Just after the prior e-mail where

14:34:43

OF

TH
E

FO

14:34:22

ND

14:34:57

Do you remember what he said?

A.

It was pretty simple.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

14:34:03

I remember speaking with Lieutenant Sousa about this,

IE

22

And if you read this at the time, you would have recognized

GB
OW
.C
OM

It was it's still with the lawyers.

Did you direct -- once you took over HSU, did you

24

direct Sergeant Palmer to follow up with Mr. Casey?

25

A.

Not that I recall.

14:35:14

Jakowinicz - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

420

Q.

Did you personally follow up with Mr. Casey?

A.

I don't -- reference this scenario, I --

Q.

Yes, that's what I'm referring to, uh-huh.

A.

Not that I recall.

Q.

Now, on this March 27 e-mail, Chief Sands is not copied on

that, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

So unless somebody that was copied on it told him, he would

have no way of knowing about this e-mail or what the status

GB
OW
.C
OM

was, would you agree?

11

A.

Correct, sir.

12

Q.

All right.

13

we seem to have a log jam here with the lawyers.

14

us out?

15

A.

Thank you.

Chief,

Can you help

14:36:01

That's all the questions I have.

Thank you.

ND

Redirect?

20

MR. SEGURA:

A few questions, Your Honor.

14:36:09

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

IE

21

BY MR. SEGURA:
Q.

FR

23

Okay.

THE COURT:

19

22

TH
E

MR. COMO:

18

14:35:46

Can you get us past this?

OF

17

You did not go to Chief Sands and say:

I don't recall.

16

FO

10

14:35:30

After an interdiction event when a potential load vehicle

24

is stopped, do the deputies involved in that stop produce any

25

documentation of it?

14:36:28

Jakowinicz - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

They would write a report.

Q.

Is that called an incident report?

A.

Or a departmental report, yeah.

Q.

Oh, a departmental report?

A.

Or an incident report, yeah, the name.

Q.

Those are interchangeable?

A.

I think we changed the name at one point.

departmental reports, then it became incident reports.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

421

Okay.

It was

And those departmental reports include the reason for the

stop?

11

A.

They should, yes.

12

Q.

And it includes what occurred after the vehicle was

13

stopped?

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

And it includes whether there was probable cause -- whether

16

probable cause was obtained to arrest individuals, is that

17

correct?

18

A.

Correct, it would include everything, the entire --

19

Q.

And while you were at HSU you reviewed these reports,

20

correct?

21

A.

ND

TH
E

OF

14:37:06

That was the sergeant's job.

IE

Not generally.

14:37:34

Q.

But you have reviewed these reports, correct?

A.

I would look at them from time to time.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

Exhibits 207, 208, and 209, those were spreadsheets only for

FR

23

14:36:57

FO

10

22

14:36:38

The spreadsheets that I showed you earlier,


14:37:51

Jakowinicz - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

422

the human smuggling unit, not the criminal employment squad, is

that correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

So those spreadsheets would not include individuals who

were turned over to ICE by the criminal employment squad,

correct?

A.

Correct, sir.

Q.

Okay.

retain e-mails, is that correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Ms. Iafrate asked you if you were instructed to

A.

Correct, sir.

11

Q.

But the only e-mails you were instructed to retain were

12

those relating to operational matters, is that correct?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

And you also told Ms. Iafrate that you were instructed to

15

retain videos, is that correct?

16

A.

Clarify that?

17

Q.

I believe Ms. Iafrate asked you if you were instructed to

18

retain videos, and you said yes.

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

14:38:43

OF

I was told to -- to retain videos?

ND

Right, yeah, the division did, we -- the division did.


When were you given that instruction?

IE

At the beginning.

14:39:05

When I first started, I think

Lieutenant Sousa made me aware of that.


Q.

FR

23

14:38:27

FO

10

22

14:38:08

Okay.

And did you ever make -- did you ever make any

24

recordings while you were with HSU?

25

A.

No, sir.

14:39:34

Jakowinicz-Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

423

Q.

Mr. Walker asked you if you could -- this is back to the

spreadsheets, Exhibit 207 to 209 -- if you could personally

vouch for the information in the spreadsheet for the accuracy

of the numbers, and you said no, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

You supervised the compilation of that spreadsheet, is that

correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that

spreadsheet?

11

A.

No, sir.
MR. SEGURA:

13

THE COURT:

14

No further questions.

I have just a few follow-up I want to make

EXAMINATION

BY THE COURT:

17

Q.

18

interdiction unit?

19

A.

20

time period.

21

Q.

14:40:19

OF

16

So Exhibits 207, 208, and 209 are only compilations of the

ND

Yes, sir, anybody assigned to human smuggling during that


14:40:39

IE

And so that you had human smuggling and you had a criminal

employment unit?
A.

Yes, sir.

24

Q.

And you supervised both of those units.

25

A.

Yes, sir.

FR

23

14:40:10

sure I understand, Lieutenant.

15

22

Thank you.

TH
E

12

14:39:58

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

14:40:50

Jakowinicz-Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

424

Q.

One of the categories on Exhibits 207, 208, and 209 said

something about ICE, delivery to ICE.

here that at a certain point, and I don't know if they did it

consistently, ICE refused to take these folks, and then the

Sheriff's Office delivered them to Customs and Border Patrol in

Casa Grande.

GB
OW
.C
OM

But we've had testimony

Would that be consistent with your experience?


A.

Yes, Your Honor.

Q.

Do you know where ICE offices are in Maricopa County?

10

A.

I couldn't tell you the street, but I know it's downtown.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

deliveries were made to -- or the Sheriff's Office took people

13

downtown to ICE and delivered them there?

14

A.

15

would come to our location; sometimes we would meet them at a

16

preassigned spot; sometimes we would take them all the way down

17

to ICE.

18

Q.

19

Border Patrol, you would tend to drive them to Customs and

20

Border Patrol.

21

A.

TH
E

So the deliveries -- when ICE took people, the

Sometimes they
14:41:50

OF

It could have been a couple different ways.

And when you delivered them to Customs and

ND

All right.

I think more or less

IE

Or meet at a prearranged place, yeah.

14:42:05

we would meet at a prearranged place because the -- the Border


Patrol station was -- was quite far.

FR

23

14:41:29

FO

22

14:41:12

24

Q.

Now, was there any -- when -- are you familiar with the

25

operations of the criminal employment unit?

14:42:20

Jakowinicz-Exam by Court, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

425

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And would you similarly arrest people in the criminal

employment unit that you had no state charge for?

A.

We wouldn't arrest them.

Q.

But you would hold them.

A.

If after speaking with ICE or Border Patrol they said yes,

after they did an interview telephonically with that

individual, the -- they would give us the phone back, and then

the federal agent would tell us:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Please hold on to that

person.

We want to take custody of that person.

11

Q.

So you detained them.

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

And then you delivered custody either to CBP or to ICE?

14

A.

Yes, Your Honor.

15

Q.

And when you delivered custody to CBP, did you do that in a

16

motor vehicle?

17

A.

If we delivered them, yes.

18

Q.

Or if you met somebody halfway?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

14:42:58

ND

Or partway.

14:43:09

IE

Yes, Your Honor.

Q.

And when ICE came and got them, was it in a motor vehicle?

A.

To the best of my knowledge, yes, sir.

24

Q.

Were the persons detained while they were in that motor

25

vehicle?

FR

23

14:42:50

FO

10

22

14:42:34

They were not free to go?

14:43:23

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 426

A.

Correct, sir.

Q.

And would you use the public roadways of Maricopa County

when you were transporting such persons?

A.

Yes, Your Honor.

Q.

And did you say that you have done a -- in addition to

Exhibits 207, 208, and 209, you've done a compilation of the

number of people that you delivered to -- or that you delivered

or ICE or CBP picked up from you as a result of the criminal

employment unit's operations?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes, Your Honor.

11

Q.

And was that part of the same materials that constitute

12

part of 207, 208, and 209?

13

A.

No, sir, it's separate.

14

Q.

It's a separate compilation?

15

A.

Yes, Your Honor.

TH
E

THE COURT:

17

(Pause in proceedings.)

18

THE COURT:

S
mine?

14:44:29

MR. SEGURA:

FR

23

That's all I have.

Mr. Segura, do you have any more questions based on

IE

22

One moment, please.

ND

19

21

14:44:12

OF

16

20

14:44:00

FO

10

14:43:30

THE COURT:

I do not, Your Honor.


Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:

24

THE COURT:

25

MR. COMO:

No, Your Honor.

Mr. Como?
Nothing, Your Honor.

14:44:34

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 427

THE COURT:

Mr. Walker?

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

Nothing further, Your Honor.


All right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I intend to use all of our

time until 5 o'clock today.

for 15 minutes, or do you want to start with the next witness?

6
7

MR. SEGURA:

I don't need 15 minutes, but I would

THE COURT:
everybody a break.

All right.

Well, we're going to give

And somebody might want 15 minutes, so

we're going to give you 15 minutes.

11

3 o'clock.

We'll be back at

(Recess taken.)

13

THE CLERK:

All rise, please.

15

THE COURT:

Please be seated.

16

Before we get going again, and Ms. Iafrate, before I

TH
E

12

Court is now in

OF

session.

15:03:40

17

forget, I've reviewed -- initially we were going to have those

18

MCSO internal investigations done in early March.

19

indicated that you, in early March, that you needed an

20

extension until April 13.

21

don't have those investigations completed.

ND

You

April 13 has come and gone.

We

15:03:59

Obviously, in setting the supplemental hearing we will

want to have them completed well enough in time to do the

FR

23

IE

22

14:44:54

FO

10

14

14:44:42

appreciate a slight break, if that's --

8
9

Do you want to take a break now

24

evaluations I discussed.

I would request in the next day or

25

so, if you can, you provide me with an indication of when those

15:04:16

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

428

investigations will be completed.

and 543, I mean the other investigations that arose from the

Armendariz and/or Cisco Perez and related allegations that are

related to the subject matter of this lawsuit.

Next witness, Mr. Segura.

MR. SEGURA:

THE CLERK:

10

Plaintiffs call Sergeant Mike Trowbridge.


Please state your full name for the

record, and spell your last name.

THE WITNESS:

Michael, last name's Trowbridge,

T-r-o-w, and then bridge, b-r-i-d-g-e.

11

(Michael Trowbridge was duly sworn as a witness.)

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. SEGURA:

Thank you.
MICHAEL TROWBRIDGE

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

16

examined and testified as follows:

17

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. SEGURA:

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

18

ND

Good afternoon, Sergeant Trowbridge.


Good afternoon.

15:05:42

IE

Sergeant, when did you join MCSO?

A.

In August of 2003 -- or 2004.

Q.

And at some point you were promoted to sergeant, is that

FR

23

15:05:38

OF

15

22

15:05:05

You may proceed, Mr. Segura.

TH
E

14

15:04:37

FO

And I don't just mean 542

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

correct?

25

A.

Correct, in February of 2008.

15:05:54

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

429

Q.

And what was your position when you became sergeant?

A.

I was a patrol sergeant in District 2, which is the

southwest valley, for three years.

Q.

And you did that until you joined HSU?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And when did you join HSU?

A.

March of 2011.

Q.

And Lieutenant Sousa called you and asked you to join HSU,

is that correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Correct.

11

Q.

And what was your -- what was your position within HSU?

12

A.

I was one of the interdiction sergeants.

13

Q.

So you supervised deputies involved in interdiction?

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

And that means you, your squad, would be responsible for

16

identifying load vehicles, or vehicles involved in human

17

smuggling?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

And you were with HSU until March of 2013, is that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND
Correct.

15:07:01

During interdiction enforcement while you were at HSU, as I

said, the target was to identify load vehicles, right?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And if you believed there was a potential load vehicle, the

25

practice was to tail the vehicle until you could develop

FR

23

15:06:44

IE

22

15:06:25

FO

10

15:06:11

15:07:14

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

430

probable cause of a traffic violation, or something like that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Some justification to pull the car over?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And once the vehicle was stopped, HSU members would try to

determine if the driver or passengers in the vehicle were

involved in human smuggling, is that right?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And if there were -- and the driver's questioned first, is

GB
OW
.C
OM

that right?

11

A.

Most of the time, yes.

12

Q.

And what questions are those -- what questions would the

13

driver be asked to determine if there may be human smuggling?

14

A.

15

luggage in the vehicle, why wasn't there luggage, and then if

16

they knew the names of their passengers.

17

Q.

18

smuggling, would you then question the passengers?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

15:07:59

ND

Yes.

And if after questioning the driver you suspected human

And what questions would you ask the passengers?

15:08:11

If they knew who was driving the vehicle and where they

were trying to go throughout the United States.


Q.

FR

23

They'd usually be asked where they were going, if there was

IE

22

15:07:37

FO

10

15:07:23

And would you ask the passengers if they paid money to be

24

transported or to get into the United States?

25

A.

Yes.

15:08:33

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

to whether they paid money or knew the driver, but not all the

passengers, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And so for the passengers who you or other HSU members in

that situation have not questioned about their involvement in

human smuggling, those would typically be brought back to

Enforcement Support to be questioned there, is that correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Okay.

11

the scene, but transported to Enforcement Support, at that

12

point, when they're being transported, you would not have

13

specific information as to whether those specific passengers

14

were involved in human smuggling, right?

15

A.

No, not yet.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

to those passengers, that would be done once they were at

18

Enforcement Support, correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

questioned on the scene back to Enforcement Support, that

15:08:50

15:09:04

TH
E

FO

And for those passengers who were not questioned on

15:09:28

OF

And that -- and if probable cause were developed as

ND

Yes.

15:09:42

IE

And this practice of bringing passengers who were not

continued while you were at HSU, correct?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

If passengers were taken back to Enforcement Support to be

25

questioned there, how long would it take before they're

FR

23

Sometimes you would only question some passengers as

GB
OW
.C
OM

22

Okay.

431

15:10:04

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

432

questioned at Enforcement Support?

A.

but usually within the hour.

Q.

12 passengers, how long would that take?

A.

there, make sure they didn't have any medical conditions, call

Lower Buckeye jail, get them food, and then eventually the

detectives would start going in one by one and getting them for

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

It could vary, depending on how many passengers there are,

And if there's a -- a large load vehicle with 10 or

Could take a little bit longer.

We'd usually get back

the interviews.

11

Q.

That could take several hours?

12

A.

It could.

13

Q.

Are you familiar what's -- with what's referred to as the

14

LEAR policy?

15

A.

A little bit, yes.

16

Q.

And what do you understand that policy to be?

17

A.

That if deputies out in patrol came in contact with

18

somebody they suspected that was illegal in the country, to

19

detain them and either call an HSU supervisor or somebody at

20

the time who was 287(g) certified.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

15:10:44

15:11:00

And was that policy in effect while you were at HSU?

IE

Okay.

A.

Yes.

Q.

And so if there were no probable cause or state charges on

FR

23

15:10:36

FO

10

22

15:10:21

24

which to hold an individual contacted in a car, in a vehicle,

25

but those individuals were -- that individual was believed to

15:11:22

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

433

be undocumented, that individual would be held and ICE would be

called, is that correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

No.

Q.

Okay.

concern about holding people without probable cause of state

charges before they were turned over to ICE?

A.

Only the one time with Sergeant Palmer.

10

Q.

And what was that time?

11

A.

He had spoke to the sheriff on speakerphone about holding a

12

group of individuals.

13

Q.

14

a second.

15

And that policy never changed while you were at HSU?

Thank you.

We'll get to that in

Are you familiar with this Court's December 2011

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And when did you first learn about that order?

19

A.

I believe it was either -- probably a week or two after it

20

came out.

21

Q.

15:12:07

ND

OF

order?

Okay.

15:12:22

And what was your understanding of the order?

IE
A.

That MCSO could no longer detain people based solely on

race, and the fact that they were presumed to be illegally in

FR

23

15:11:52

FO

We'll get to that.

16

22

15:11:36

While you were at HSU did you ever hear of any

TH
E

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

the country.

25

Q.

Okay.

And that's if there were no state charges on which

15:12:37

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

434

they could be held?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Do you believe that others at HSU knew about this order?

A.

Within the unit?

Q.

By "HSU," I mean the Human Smuggling Division.

A.

Yes, they probably did.

Q.

And why do you believe that?

A.

I don't remember specific conversations, but it was talked

about.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Q.

11

right?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

There was concern that something may happen to the Human

14

Smuggling Division because of that order?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

You weren't sure whether human -- the Human Smuggling Unit

17

would still exist after that order, correct?

18

A.

Correct.

19

Q.

But in fact there weren't changes -- there weren't any

20

changes with respect to how -- with respect to turning over

21

people to ICE while you were at HSU, correct?

15:13:07

TH
E

OF

15:13:22

ND

A.

No, other than ICE sometimes wouldn't accept the people.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

IE

22

There was concern within HSU about the Court's order,

FO

10

15:12:51

And when ICE wouldn't accept the people, Border

24

Patrol would be called, correct?

25

A.

Yes.

15:13:42

15:14:04

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

435

Q.

So you -- you knew that the December 2011 order prohibited

holding people who couldn't be charged with a state crime on

the basis that they may be undocumented, is that correct?

A.

At the time, I'm not sure if I fully realized that, no.

Q.

I'd like to show you -- you were deposed in this case,

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you swore to tell the truth during that deposition, is

that correct?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

page 88, lines 5 through 11.

14

So here's -- here's the relevant portion that I'd like


to ask you about.

15

So I asked you during your deposition that at the


time -- I said:

17

2011 order, you understood it to prohibit holding people who

18

couldn't be charged with a state crime?"

"So at the time you learned of the December

And your answer was:

"Yeah, pretty much.

I mean,

ND

19

that they were illegal in the country without more didn't

21

constitute them being held."

IE

20

15:15:40

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

But HSU continued holding people only on suspicion of their

25

immigration status, is that correct?

FR

23

15:15:24

OF

16

22

15:14:55

I'd like to show you Volume 1 of your deposition,

TH
E

13

15:14:28

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

15:15:59

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

436

A.

Sometimes, yes.

Q.

And that was in violation of the Court's December 2011

order?

A.

Yes, it was.

Q.

You didn't raise this because you assumed that you would be

told by your command staff, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Your view was that it was the responsibility of command

staff to tell you about any changes in terms of policies or

GB
OW
.C
OM

practices, correct?

11

A.

Something major like that, yes.

12

Q.

You were at -- were you at two meetings about the Court's

13

December 2011 order?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And these were meetings at the sheriff's office, correct?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

That was in the Wells Fargo building?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Were those held shortly after the order came out?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND

I'm not sure when the -- exactly the date they were held.

15:17:05

But they were held while you were at HSU?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And during these meetings the Court's December 2011 order

FR

23

15:16:48

IE

22

15:16:26

FO

10

15:16:08

24

was discussed?

25

A.

I believe it was, yes.

15:17:17

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

437

Q.

Okay.

And the sheriff was present?

A.

Yes, he was.

Q.

Chief Deputy Sheridan and Chief Sands were there, too?

A.

Chief Sands was, and I don't know if the chief deputy was.

He might have been at one of them.

Q.

we were just viewing, lines 14 to 18.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'd like to show you page 85 of the deposition transcript

Actually, could we go to line 12 to 18.

So I asked and you said the sheriff was there, and


your answer was:

"He was."

11

And I asked:

12

And your response was:

"Who else from MCSO was there."


"And one of them, Sheridan --

and one of them, Sheridan was there.

14

Sands was there.

15

Lisa Allen, so any of the PIOs would be there."

TH
E

13

Lisa Allen.

I think in all of them,

And then anybody that worked for

You see that?


A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Was that testimony to the best of your recollection when

19

you gave it?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND
Yes.

15:18:52

IE

Does that refresh your recollection as to whether Chief

Deputy Sheridan was there?


A.

I stated earlier that he was at one of them.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

A.

Yes.

FR

23

17

22

15:18:35

OF

16

15:18:18

FO

10

15:17:33

Counsel for MCSO was also present -15:19:08

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

438

Q.

-- during these meetings?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How long did each of these meetings last?

A.

Approximately probably an hour.

Q.

You would assume that people present in those meetings

would have known about the Court's December 2011 order,

correct?

A.

I'm not sure.

Q.

You said earlier that the December 2011 order was discussed

during these meetings?

11

A.

Yes, it was.

12

Q.

Do you recall -- and I think you may have referred to this

13

earlier -- an incident in much Sergeant Palmer and the sheriff

14

had a disagreement about holding people without state charges?

15

A.

16

conversation.

17

Q.

18

is that correct?

19

A.

Correct.

20

Q.

21

speakerphone?

TH
E

15:19:53

OF

I remember the situation, but I don't remember the exact

Sergeant Palmer and the sheriff were speaking on the phone,

And you were listening to that conversation on

A.

Correct.

Q.

The sheriff wanted individuals on which MCSO did not have

FR

23

15:19:39

15:20:05

IE

22

15:19:18

FO

10

ND

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

state charges to be held, is that correct?

25

A.

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

15:20:21

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

But Sergeant Palmer told the sheriff that -- that

MCSO could not continue holding them on that basis, is that

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And from what you heard, the sheriff wanted them held until

the media arrived, correct?

A.

effect.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Okay.

439

Again, I don't remember exactly.

It was something to that

And your understanding was so that the media could film

them coming out of the building?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Do you think the sheriff wanted to prove a point by that?

13

A.

I have no idea.

TH
E

14

MR. SEGURA:

Please show the witness page 106 of his

15

deposition, the entire page.

16

BY MR. SEGURA:

17

Q.

18

and on line 2 -- says zero two -- I asked:

19

sheriff wanted to -- to show you that ICE was refusing to take

20

people who were undocumented?"

24
25

OF

"Do you think the

ND

And your response:

been.

FR

23

15:21:57

During your deposition we were discussing this incident,

IE

22

15:20:49

FO

10

21

15:20:32

I don't know.

"I don't know.

It could have

Maybe."

Then I asked you:

"Why do you think maybe?"

And your response was:

point, I guess."

15:22:33

"Just to kind of prove a


15:22:45

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

440

Do you see that?


A.

Yes.

Q.

And I asked you:

A.

Yes.

Q.

Could you read me your answer on line 15?

A.

"That ICE is refusing to take the people.

kind of conveying they're not doing their job type thing."

Q.

Was your testimony accurate?

A.

Yes, it was.

10

Q.

HSU -- and I believe you referred to this, but HSU

11

operations were often the subject of media attention, correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

HSU operations and members of HSU would often end up being

14

shown in the media?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And the sheriff would also often be in the media after HSU

17

operations?

18

A.

Correct.

19

Q.

Would you say he was in the spotlight because of it?

20

A.

21

Q.

See that?

15:22:50

That basically

15:23:45

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

15:23:26

I guess, yes.

15:23:57

There was a lot of media attention on those matters,

correct?
A.

Yes, there was.

24

Q.

And because of this, you believe the sheriff had a

25

particular interest in HSU operations, correct?

FR

23

"What point would that be?"

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

15:24:09

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes.

Q.

Because it would put him in front of camera, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

When you arrived at HSU, you were put in charge of

supervising Deputy Charley Armendariz, is that correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And you had some concerns about him, is that correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What were those concerns?

10

A.

The number of citizen complaints that he would generate

11

when we were doing interdiction.

12

Q.

And who told you about those complaints?

13

A.

When I first came to the unit I was briefed by Sergeant

14

Manny Madrid.

15

Q.

Was he Deputy Armendariz's prior supervisor?

16

A.

Yes, he was.

17

Q.

And while you were Deputy Armendariz's supervisor, he

18

continued to generate complaints, is that correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

22

15:24:53

OF

TH
E

FO

15:24:40

ND

Yes, he did.
And you raised those up, those -- strike that.

15:25:05

You kept track of those complaints, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you raised your concerns with those above you, is that

FR

23

15:24:28

IE

21

GB
OW
.C
OM

441

24

right?

25

A.

Yes.

15:25:19

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

442

Q.

supervisor, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And then you later raised it again with Lieutenant

Jakowinicz when he became your supervisor, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

At some point Deputy Armendariz checked into a behavioral

health facility, is that correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And why was that?

11

A.

He attempted to kill himself.

12

Q.

Do you recall when that was?

13

A.

I don't.

14

Q.

But that was while you were at HSU?

15

A.

Yes, it was.

16

Q.

Do you recall how long he was in that facility?

17

A.

I believe three or four days.

18

Q.

And while you were there, the doctor called -- his doctor

19

called you to see if you could assure that he wouldn't have

20

access to any weapons or firearms, is that correct?

21

A.

FO

15:25:42

15:25:56

OF

TH
E

I'd have to look at my memos.

ND

Q.

15:26:13

Yes.

And you yourself had concerns with him returning to duty,

is that correct?

FR

23

15:25:31

IE

22

You first raised it when Lieutenant Sousa was your

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Because of the complaints he'd generated?

15:26:20

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

been in that type of place.

Q.

But MCSO gave him a fit for duty package after that?

A.

I picked one up from personnel and delivered it to -- I

believe to him, that he had to have signed off by the doctor.

Q.

And what does a fit for duty packet mean?

A.

I'm not sure what it consists of.

Q.

Does that mean you're fit to return to duty as an officer?

A.

I would assume so, yes.

10

Q.

And he returned to normal duty, is that correct?

11

A.

Yes, he did.

12

Q.

Do you recall how long after he left the facility that he

13

returned?

14

A.

15

the packet and then deliver it back to personnel.

16

Q.

17

return, is that correct?

18

A.

19

confiscated his firearms at his personal residence, and at some

20

point he got them back, yes.

21

Q.

15:26:42

TH
E

FO

15:26:58

It was probably a few days, because I met him to pick up


15:27:11

OF

And you -- and he was -- he was given a firearm upon his

ND

I think when everything happened we actually had

15:27:27

IE

You wrote up a few memos about Deputy Armendariz, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

One was a memo to Lieutenant Jakowinicz summarizing your

FR

23

That and his mental stability, being that he'd just

GB
OW
.C
OM

22

Yes.

443

24

complaints --

25

A.

Yes.

15:27:46

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

444

-- is that correct?
Can we show the -- I'd like to show the witness

Exhibit 133, which has been introduced -- which has been

admitted into evidence.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Could we go to the first page after the cover?

And why don't we zoom in on that first part.

Is this the memorandum that we were just discussing in


which you summarized the complaints about --

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

-- Deputy Armendariz to Lieutenant Jakowinicz?

11

A.

Yes, it is.

12

Q.

And did Lieutenant Jakowinicz ask you to write this?

13

A.

I believe he did, yes.

14

Q.

What did you -- what was the purpose of your writing this

15

memorandum?

16

A.

17

since I was his supervisor.

18

Q.

19

you want to see happen to Deputy Armendariz?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

Just to summarize the number of citizen complaints he had

ND

And what did -- as Deputy Armendariz's supervisor, what did

Ultimately, he needed to probably leave the unit.

15:28:50

You also thought he should probably leave MCSO, is that

correct?
A.

Possibly.

24

Q.

Lieutenant Jakowinicz, you're aware that Lieutenant

25

Jakowinicz requested his transfer?

FR

23

15:28:33

IE

22

15:28:16

FO

15:28:01

15:29:09

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

445

A.

Yes.

Q.

And he made that request to Chief Trombi?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And what was the result of that request?

A.

It got denied.

up to his office, and then shortly after, Jakowinicz received a

text message saying to give him back his vehicle and put him

back in the unit.

Q.

Are you aware of the reasons why he was not transferred?

10

A.

No.

11

Q.

Anyone explain those reasons to you?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

Are you aware that HSU members displayed license plates on

14

the wall?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Did you have license plates --

17

A.

Yes, I did.

18

Q.

-- on the wall?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

A.

15:29:16

15:29:47

OF

TH
E

FO

15:29:37

ND

Q.

Did all HSU detectives have license plates on the wall?

15:29:57

I believe so.
And these were plates typically taken from vehicles

involved in human smuggling?

FR

23

Chief Trombi had asked for Charley to come

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

These plates were kept as trophies, is that correct?

15:30:09

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes, I guess you could call them that.

Q.

Were these plates obvious to anyone who would visit the

office?

Let me rephrase that.

GB
OW
.C
OM

446

If anyone visited the office, would they see the


plates on the wall?

A.

Yes.

Q.

They were openly visible?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Chief Trombi visited the HSU office, is that correct?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

So Trombi would have seen them, correct?

12

A.

Most likely, yes.

13

Q.

And the same for Lieutenant Sousa?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

You were not instructed to search your own files prior to

16

your first deposition in this case, is that correct?

17

A.

No.

18

Q.

And included in that, you weren't instructed to search

19

through your e-mails before your first deposition, is that

20

correct?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

OF

15:30:54

ND

Q.

15:31:20

No.

After your first deposition, Captain Skinner and

Ms. Iafrate searched your e-mails, is that correct?

FR

23

15:30:47

IE

22

15:30:35

FO

A.

Yes.
MR. SEGURA:

Could we show the -- I'd like to show the

15:31:56

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

witness Exhibit 189, which has been admitted into evidence.

Go to the next page, please.

GB
OW
.C
OM

447

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

Do you recognize this e-mail?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And this is an e-mail from you -- this is an e-mail to you.

You were cc'd on this e-mail from Sergeant Palmer, is that

correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And this is regarding Sergeant Palmer's training scenarios,

11

is that correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

You did not see this e-mail when you went through your

14

e-mail, is that correct?

15

A.

No, I did not.

16

Q.

And you do not know if it was deleted from your e-mails?

17

A.

No, I do not.

18

Q.

Were you under instructions to save e-mails regarding

19

operations?

20

A.

21

Q.

15:32:35

TH
E

ND

OF

15:32:48

15:33:01

Do you understand e-mails such as this to be related to

operations?
A.

FR

23

Yes.

IE

22

15:32:14

FO

It's more training.

24

more about training.

25

Q.

I wouldn't say it's operational, it's

So this e-mail shouldn't have been saved pursuant to your

15:33:16

Trowbridge - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

instructions?

A.

448

MR. SEGURA:

GB
OW
.C
OM

It may have been, or may -- maybe not.

Can we show the witness deposition

Volume 2, page 202, lines 21 through 25.

BY MR. SEGURA:

Q.

under instructions to save e-mails related to operations, is

that correct?"

During your deposition I asked you:

And your answer was:


And I asked you:

"I believe you were

"Correct."

"Would e-mails like Exhibit 178

11

constitute e-mails related to operations, in your

12

understanding?"

14

Could we put the lines -- the next -- page 203, lines

TH
E

13

1 and 2, up as well.

15

I will tell you that Exhibit 189, which we just

15:35:18

discussed, was previously Plaintiffs' Exhibit -- Plaintiffs'

17

Deposition Exhibit 178, so by Exhibit 178 we are referring to

18

Exhibit 189.

OF

16

I asked you:

"Would e-mails like Exhibit 178

ND

19

constitute e-mails related to operations, in your

21

understanding?"

24
25

And your answer was:

"Yeah, it probably would.

15:35:37

saved almost anything connected with HSU."

FR

23

IE

20

22

15:34:46

FO

10

15:34:35

A.

Do you see that?


Yes.

15:35:48

Q.

Is your testimony accurate?

A.

Yes.

MR. SEGURA:

Thank you.

THE COURT:

Ms. Iafrate.

I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Good afternoon.

A.

Good afternoon.

Q.

There was some discussion earlier by Sergeant Palmer

regarding informal training that he conducted, took upon

11

himself to brief the units at HSU.

12

15:36:41

Were you familiar with that?


A.

No.

14

Q.

Did you attend that?

15

A.

No, I don't believe so.

16

Q.

Do you know if it happened or not?

17

A.

I do not.

18

Q.

There was also some discussion just recently regarding

19

training scenarios.

20

you if you were familiar with that e-mail with the training

21

scenarios and you said yes, correct?

TH
E

13

It's Exhibit 156.

And plaintiffs asked


15:37:20

IE

ND

OF

15:36:57

A.

I'm familiar with the e-mail itself, yes.

Q.

When were you first made aware of those e-mail scenarios in

FR

23

15:36:37

FO

10

22

449

GB
OW
.C
OM

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

24

that e-mail?

25

A.

At my deposition.

15:37:34

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

450

Q.

You don't recall receiving that e-mail prior to your

deposition in this case?

A.

No.

Q.

And when you're talking about the deposition, you're

talking about the depositions for the contempt hearing,

correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Were you deposed regarding the original trial?

A.

No.

10

Q.

Did you attend the trial?

11

A.

No.

12

Q.

I want to talk to you briefly about HSU's knowledge of the

13

preliminary injunction.

TH
E

14

16

A.

I believe a week or two after it came out.

17

Q.

Did you read it?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Did you understand it?

20

A.

21

Q.

15:38:20

ND

OF

injunction in this case?

Probably not fully, no.

15:38:25

IE

You know more now than you did then, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

While you were at HSU following the preliminary injunction

FR

23

15:37:55

When were you first made aware of the preliminary

15

22

15:37:47

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

order, did HSU believe that it was following the Court's

25

orders?

15:38:40

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

We believed we were doing our job,

and if we were doing something that was to violate the order

that we would be told by our command staff to knock it off and

not do that.

Q.

regarding an incident that -- the typical situation in HSU

where there would be some investigation on the roadside.

GB
OW
.C
OM

We believed we were.

451

So when there was discussion in your direct examination

Do you recall that?


A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And then if probable cause was not reached, then the group

11

would go back to the Enforcement Support building.

12

Do you recall that?


A.

Yes.

14

Q.

At the time the preliminary injunction was ordered, did you

15

realize that that, in and of itself, would be a violation of

16

the preliminary injunction?

17

A.

No.

18

Q.

Do you know that to be the case now?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

discussed with you, and that was a conversation that you

OF

ND

Let me switch to a more specific scenario that was

IE

15:39:37

15:39:50

overheard with Sergeant Palmer and Sheriff Arpaio.

FR

23

TH
E

13

22

15:39:21

FO

15:39:01

Do you recall that?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Do you recall the substance of the conversation?

15:40:02

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

452

A.

No.

Q.

Do you recall -- I believe that one of the things that you

said was that Sheriff Arpaio wanted people held at that

location, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And Palmer wanted what?

A.

To either -- he wanted just to get the people out of the

building, by contacting either Border Patrol or letting them

go.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Q.

11

correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

And Sergeant Palmer violated the preliminary injunction by

14

doing that, correct?

15

A.

He would have, yes.

16

Q.

You know that now?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

That situation where Sergeant Palmer wanted to contact

19

Border Patrol and sent these individuals to Border Patrol and

20

the sheriff did not want him to do that, what ultimately

21

happened?

24
25

TH
E

OF

15:40:36

ND

A.

The people ultimately went to Border Patrol.

Q.

Speaking of these scenarios, we're calling these roadside

FR

23

15:40:28

15:40:59

IE

22

And ultimately they were transported to Border Patrol,

FO

10

15:40:18

investigations "interdictions."
Are you familiar with that term?

15:41:20

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

453

A.

Yes.

Q.

Who chose the locations of where the interdiction patrols

would occur?

A.

The interdiction sergeants, myself or Sergeant Palmer.

Q.

Did you have to get a blessing from the sheriff?

A.

No.

Q.

Did you brief the sheriff before you went out on these

interdictions of where they were going to be located?

A.

No.

10

Q.

Did you brief Chief Sheridan regarding where the

11

interdictions would occur?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

Did you brief Chief Sands where the interdictions occurred?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

Did you brief Lieutenant Sousa where the interdictions

16

would occur?

17

A.

18

times, though.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

15:41:44

FO

TH
E

OF

15:41:31

15:41:51

He kind of knew where it would be most

ND

He was more hands on?


Yes.

15:42:10

I want to show you -- can I have the -- thank you.


You were deposed on March 30th, 2015, correct?

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Plaintiffs' counsel showed you a portion of your

25

deposition.

FR

23

I don't believe so.

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

I just want to go a little bit further.

15:42:40

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

454

This is the portion that plaintiffs' counsel read to


you:

"So at the time you learned of the December 2011 order,

you understood it to prohibit holding people who couldn't be

charged with a state crime?"

You answered:

GB
OW
.C
OM

"Yeah, pretty much.

I mean, that they

were illegal in the country without more didn't constitute them

being held."

10

"Did HSU continue holding people without PC of a state


crime on the basis that they are here illegally after the
December 2011 order?"

11

"Yes."

12

So far have I read that accurately?


A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Let's go on to the portion that wasn't read to you.


"And that was in violation of the December 2011

order?"

OF

16

TH
E

13

15

You answered:

18

"And having understood the order to prohibit that, why

22

You answered:

24
25

"At the time I guess it was because we

15:43:38

were trying to establish the probable cause for the state


crime, and then that was just general custom, that we would
contact ICE and then turn them over to ICE if -- if we didn't

FR

23

did you continue doing interdiction that way?"

ND

21

"It would have been, yes."

IE

20

15:43:22

17

19

15:43:13

FO

15:42:59

meet the state requirements."


"But did you understand that action to violate the

15:43:54

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

455

Court's order?"
Your answer was:

"I did not.

Did I read that accurately?

Not at the time, no."

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes.

Q.

At the time that you continued to do this activity were

you -- did you have an understanding that it violated the

preliminary injunction?

A.

No.

Q.

So the portion that was read to you by plaintiffs' counsel

is based on your understanding of the preliminary injunction

11

now, correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

You didn't purposefully violate any court order, did you,

14

Sergeant?

15

A.

No.

16

Q.

Did anyone task you with training your unit regarding the

17

preliminary injunction?

18

A.

No.

19

Q.

There was some discussion with plaintiffs' counsel

20

regarding Deputy Armendariz.

21

Do you recall that?

TH
E

OF

ND

A.

Yes.

Q.

You knew Deputy Armendariz, correct?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Was he a friend of yours?

FR

23

15:44:55

15:45:28

IE

22

15:44:15

FO

10

15:44:04

15:45:34

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

456

A.

He was one of my subordinates.

Q.

Did you ever go to his house?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you ever go in his garage?

A.

I believe so, yes.

Q.

Did you ever go in his actual physical house?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Was that before or after his death?

A.

It was before.

10

Q.

That was the first time that you entered any area of his

11

home?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

So prior to that time where there was going to be at least

14

to check welfare to see if he was okay, that was the first time

15

you entered his home?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Did you have the authority to deem Deputy Armendariz fit

18

for duty?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

It was when he attempted to kill himself.

15:46:14

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

15:45:58

Who would be responsible for that decision?

15:46:26

Probably the physician, and then once he signed off on it,

probably the command staff.


Q.

FR

23

15:45:45

IE

22

No.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did a doctor sign off on Deputy Armendariz being fit for

24

duty?

25

A.

Yes.

15:46:40

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

457

Q.

When Deputy Armendariz returned to duty, did you take any

actions, any actions different as to your supervision of Deputy

Armendariz?

A.

than I would normally.

Q.

Why?

A.

Just because of what he had just gone through, to make sure

he was okay psychologically, I guess.

Q.

Not exactly.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I just kept a -- even a better eye on him

Did you see any concerning behavior when you kept a closer

eye on him?

11

A.

Nothing out of the ordinary, I guess.

12

Q.

There has been some discussion, Sergeant, regarding video

13

cameras in HSU.

14

HSU?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Did you save your videos?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Where did you save them?

19

A.

They were either saved on a disk and then given to

20

Officer Plata, or they were still on the glasses themselves.

21

Q.

15:47:52

ND

OF

TH
E

Did you use a video camera when you were in

15:48:00

IE

Was there ever a time that someone requested of you to

gather those videos?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

When was that?

25

A.

I'm not sure the date.

FR

23

15:47:28

FO

10

22

15:47:18

There was a memo that came out from

15:48:16

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

458

Executive Chief Dave Trombi said to get all the stuff together,

basically.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Other than that e-mail -- well, let's do it this way.

In 2009, did anyone ask for you to gather videos


regarding HSU?

A.

No.

Q.

How about 2010?

A.

No.

Q.

2011?

10

A.

No.

11

Q.

2012?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

2013?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

How about gathering of shift summaries and DRs as they

16

relate to HSU?

17

A.

No, not until recently.

18

Q.

"Recently" meaning when?

19

A.

When you and Captain Skinner came to my office and went

20

through them.

21

Q.

24
25

TH
E

15:48:39

ND

OF

Were you ever asked to gather those?

15:49:05

Prior to the trial were you asked to gather those?

A.

No.

Q.

There was some discussion in your direct examination

FR

23

15:48:36

IE

22

15:48:32

FO

regarding license plates.


Do you recall that?

15:49:25

Trowbridge - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

459

A.

Yes.

Q.

You had license plates, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How were these license plates obtained?

A.

When a deputy was a case agent, or the primary unit to make

a traffic stop on a -- what turned out to be a load vehicle,

either himself or one of the deputies on the squad would remove

the plate and then eventually give it to the deputy.

first stop that I had made, they took the plate off and gave it

GB
OW
.C
OM

So the

to me in my office.

11

Q.

Whose plate was that?

12

A.

It was a plate off of a human smuggling load vehicle.

13

Q.

Whose property was that?

14

A.

The state of Arizona.

TH
E

MS. IAFRATE:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

ND

19
20

MR. COMO:

22

24
25

Mr. Walker.
No questions for this witness, Your

Mr. Como.
Thank you, Your Honor.

15:50:12

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COMO:
Q.

FR

23

15:50:06

IE

21

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

OF

Honor.

18

15:49:51

FO

10

15

15:49:35

Sergeant, I just have a couple of questions for you.


It sounded, based on your answers to Ms. Iafrate's

questions, is it fair to say that there was some uncertainty in

15:50:36

Trowbridge - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

460

your mind for a period of time after this preliminary

injunction order about whether MCSO could lawfully hold people

and turn them over to ICE when there was no state charges

against them?

A.

Yes, a little bit.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Yes.

after the order had come out.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And that uncertainty persisted for months?

We weren't sure if the unit was still going to exist

Okay.

The meetings that you referred to at the Wells Fargo

building, did those occur shortly after the preliminary

11

injunction order?

12

A.

I don't remember.

13

Q.

Who usually spoke at those meetings?

14

A.

The sheriff's office counsel, Tim Casey.

15

Q.

Despite having heard Mr. Casey at those meetings, you still

16

weren't really certain on what to do in that situation where

17

you were instructed by ICE to turn people over, is that

18

correct?

19

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

FR

23

No further questions.

THE COURT:

IE

22

15:51:20

Correct.

MR. COMO:

21

15:51:08

FO

10

20

15:50:54

MR. SEGURA:

24

BY MR. SEGURA:

25

Q.

15:51:38

Mr. Segura.
Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION

I'd just like to clarify some -- a few things I'd asked you

15:51:47

Trowbridge - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

461

before.

first deposition in this case?

A.

No.

Q.

I believe you said earlier, and I may have missed this,

that the LEAR policy involved calling a 287(g) certified

officer?

A.

I believe it did, or an HSU supervisor.

Q.

Or an HSU supervisor?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Are you aware that 287(g) had ended prior to you coming to

11

HSU?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

So if a -- and I believe you said that the LEAR policy was

14

followed while you were at HSU, correct?

15

A.

I'm not sure when it started, though.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

the LEAR policy were followed, a 287(g) certified officer would

18

not be called, is that correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

Sergeant Palmer -- Deputy Palmer -- and the sheriff had about

TH
E

FO

15:52:12

15:52:28

ND

OF

But while you were at HSU, during instances in which

During the discussion over the phone that Deputy Palmer --

15:52:44

holding certain individuals, did the December 2011 order come


up during that call?

FR

23

15:52:03

IE

22

No.

Were you asked to search your e-mail prior to your

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

I don't remember.

25

conversation.

I don't remember the specifics of the


15:53:12

Trowbridge - Redirect, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

I'd like to show you page 102 of your first deposition,

lines 3 through 12.

So I asked you:

And your response was:

"What was the outcome of that call?"


"That the people were removed

out of our building and taken to ICE."

Then I asked you:

wanted to keep them there?"

Your response was:

I then asked you:

"Why did that happen if the sheriff

"I'm not sure."

"Did Sergeant Palmer refuse to keep

them there?"

11

And your response was:

13

was in violation of the order."

14

TH
E

sheriff that it was -- it wasn't in our best interests, that it

Is that deposition testimony truthful and accurate?


A.

Yes, it is.

16

Q.

Will you turn to the next page of your deposition, lines 11

17

through 16.

This is also in reference to that call.

I asked you:

"So the sheriff is giving an order that

ND

he wants the individuals held for the media, right?"

20

Your answer is:

"Yes."

15:54:52

I asked you, "And Sergeant Palmer's saying that they

IE

21

can't do that because of the Court's order, right?"

FR

23

15:54:20

18

OF

15

22

15:54:05

"I think he informed the

12

19

15:53:54

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

462

And your answer is:

"Correct."

Right?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

And your deposition testimony was truthful and accurate?

15:55:01

Trowbridge - Recross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Yes, it is.

THE COURT:

Ms. Iafrate.

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

463

Briefly, Your Honor.


RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

from your deposition.

ask you some questions?

A.

No.

10

Q.

You answered that Palmer had said that it was a violation

11

of the order to do what the sheriff was requesting, which was

12

hold them at that building, correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

You know that it's a violation of the order what

15

Sergeant Palmer did, correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

And he thought -- well, I don't want to go there.

Sergeant Palmer, you were just read questions and answers


Do you need me to put them back up to

FO

TH
E

15:55:43

OF

Now I know that, yes.

So there continued to be confusion even at this time


when there was a discussion regarding what did and did not

20

violate the order?

21

A.

ND

19

15:56:02

IE

Yes.

Q.

Even as to what Sergeant Palmer said, correct?

A.

Correct.

FR

23

15:55:29

18

22

15:55:19

24

MS. IAFRATE:

25

THE COURT:

Nothing further.

Mr. Walker?

15:56:11

Doan - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

464

MR. WALKER:

No questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Next witness.

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor, plaintiffs are going to call

Mr. Como?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Nothing further, Your Honor.


You may step down.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Emily Doan.

some efforts on our part to achieve a stipulation.

I should note that this has been the subject of

We have not

achieved agreement, so therefore we're going to need to call

11

the witness.
THE COURT:

All right.

13

THE CLERK:

State your full name for the record and

TH
E

12

14

spell your last name.

15

THE WITNESS:

16

THE CLERK:

Raise your right hand.

17

THE COURT:

Please proceed.

OF

Emily Doan.

Doan is spelled D-o-a-n.

20

examined and testified as follows:

ND

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

IE

21

15:57:33

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. BYUN:
Q.

FR

23

15:56:58

EMILY DOAN,

19

22

15:56:31

FO

10

18

15:56:19

Good afternoon.

24

Court.

25

A.

Good afternoon.

Would you please introduce yourself to the

My name is Emily Doan.

15:57:38

Doan - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

465

Q.

Ms. Doan, where do you work?

A.

I work at Covington & Burling in the Redwood Shores office.

I am a paralegal there.

Q.

the DVDs containing traffic stop videos?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Please describe the defendants' production of the DVDs that

you examined.

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Ms. Doan, have you examined the defendants' production of

I reviewed eight binders of DVDs that we received from the

defendants labeled either HSU binder videos or traffic stops

11

from different deputies.


MR. BYUN:

13

and 215.

14

215, please.

15

I'd like to show the witness Exhibits 214

Could you please hand the witness Exhibits 214 and

TH
E

12

THE CLERK:

(Handing exhibits to witness).

BY MR. BYUN:

17

Q.

Ms. Doan, do you recognize Exhibit 214?

18

A.

Yes, I do.

19

Q.

What does Exhibit 214 show?

20

A.

21

number, description, and deputy name of all the DVDs received

15:58:21

ND

OF

16

15:58:49

IE

This is a video log of -- that indicates the date, disk

from defendants.
Q.

Who prepared this log?

24

A.

I did, with the help of some of the staff in my office.

25

Q.

Is Exhibit 214 a fair and accurate summary of the

FR

23

15:58:04

FO

10

22

15:57:52

15:59:13

Doan - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

defendants' production of the DVDs?

A.

Yes.

Q.

How many of these DVDs are dated before July 2012?

A.

There are 456, according to this log.

Q.

Were any traffic stop videos produced before trial?

A.

No.

MR. BYUN:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Any objection?

No, Your Honor.


No objection.

11

MR. COMO:

12

THE COURT:

13

(Exhibit No. 214 is admitted into evidence.)

None.

15:59:44

FO

MR. WALKER:

TH
E

Exhibit 214 is admitted.

14

BY MR. BYUN:

15

Q.

16

the defendants' document production?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Please describe the documents that you examined.

19

A.

I examined incident reports that the defendants produced

20

post-trial as they were producing concurrent with my review.

21

Q.

15:59:53

ND

OF

Moving to the incident reports, Ms. Doan, have you examined

IE

I'm sorry, Ms. Doan.

question.

FR

23

15:59:29

I offer Exhibit 214 into evidence.

10

22

466

16:00:06

Could you re -- let me re-ask the

I missed what you said.


Please describe the document that you examined.

24

A.

I examined incident reports in the defendants' post-trial

25

production as they were producing documents concurrent with my

16:00:29

Doan - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

467

review.

Q.

Ms. Doan, do you recognize Exhibit 215?

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Who prepared that summary?

A.

I did.

Q.

What does Exhibit 215 show?

A.

Exhibit 215 is a log that includes Bates numbers and dates

of incident reports that were dated before July 2012, but only

produced after July 2012.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Q.

Do you mean produced by the defendants?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Is Exhibit 215 a fair and accurate summary of the incident

13

reports that are dated before July 2012 that the defendants

14

produced only after July 2012?

15

A.

16

incident reports that fall under that category.

17

Q.

18

Exhibit 215?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

were not produced before the trial?

TH
E

OF

16:01:27

Ms. Doan, how many incident reports are shown on

ND

There are 124 incident reports.

A.

How do you know that 124 incident reports on Exhibit 215

16:01:42

I ran key word searches in the pretrial production

environment, and these key words included unique phrases such

FR

23

Yeah, it's a fair and accurate summary of examples of

IE

22

16:01:11

FO

10

16:00:50

24

as people's names and street names, and I didn't find matching

25

incident reports in the pretrial environment.

16:02:07

Doan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MR. BYUN:

MS. IAFRATE:

I offer Exhibit 215 into evidence.

Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

I have an objection regarding the title,

The title?
The title.

GB
OW
.C
OM

468

Well, since I'm going to be the one that's

considering it, how about if I ignore the title?

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

If you can.

I'm going to -- with the stipulation that

I'm going to ignore the title of the document, unless there's

11

any other objections, I'm going to admit it.

12

MR. COMO:

13

MR. WALKER:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. BYUN:

16

(Exhibit No. 215 is admitted into evidence.)

17

THE COURT:

None from me, Your Honor.

TH
E

No objection, Your Honor.

All right.

16:02:42

OF

No further questions.

Cross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION

18

BY MS. IAFRATE:

20

Q.

21

A.

ND

19

Good afternoon.

16:02:56

IE

Good afternoon.

Q.

You looked at a lot of DVDs?

A.

I did.

24

Q.

You looked at a lot of documents, correct?

25

A.

Correct.

FR

23

16:02:32

FO

10

22

16:02:19

16:03:02

Doan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Did you look at the entire pretrial disclosure and compare

that to the disclosure that you've listed in 2014 and 2015?

A.

Can you repeat the question?

Q.

Let me -- let me break it down.

GB
OW
.C
OM

469

The pretrial disclosures, so before the hearing, did

you look at all the disclosure that was disclosed to plaintiffs

prior to trial?

A.

word searches that would have brought up the, you know --

I didn't look at every single document, but I did run key

Q.

I understand what you did do; I'm trying to figure out what

11

you didn't do.

12

So did you look at all the pretrial disclosure in this


case?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

You looked at every piece of paper?

16

A.

Not every piece of paper.

17

Q.

You looked at every audio and video that was produced?

18

A.

Not every single audio and video that was produced, only

19

what came up in the searches.

20

Q.

21

interested in the documents that were produced by Tim Casey.

16:03:52

ND

OF

TH
E

13

I understand that you did key word searches, but I'm more

IE
A.

FR

23

16:03:43

FO

10

22

16:03:22

16:04:08

Did you look at all of those?

I ran my searches in the database that has all of those

24

documents, yes.

25

Q.

Okay.

So my question is different than the results of

16:04:26

Doan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

searches.

Did you look at all of the

disclosure that Tim Casey produced to your firm?

A.

Not every single document.

Q.

So you didn't do a one-to-one comparison regarding what was

disclosed afterward, correct?

A.

much time to look at every single document.

Q.

need you to focus on the question.

GB
OW
.C
OM

My question is:

470

The productions were voluminous.

I understand.

It would have taken too

But I'm just asking a question and I just

You didn't do a one-to-one comparison, correct?


A.

I did not do a one-to-one comparison, no.

12

Q.

Because that would be practically impossible because it's

13

so voluminous, correct?

14

A.

15

we did not have the time.

16

Q.

I'm agreeing with you here.

17

A.

Yeah.

18

Q.

It's voluminous, right?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

regarding how you did this comparison?

TH
E

11

I mean, we -- if we had the time we could do it, but yes,

OF

ND

And so did you share those key searches with me or my firm

A.

No, I did not.

Q.

Did anyone check your comparison?

24

A.

Yes, I -- yes, people did check my comparison.

25

Q.

Who checked after your comparison?

FR

23

16:05:17

16:05:22

IE

22

16:05:01

FO

10

16:04:48

16:05:40

Doan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

471

A.

My counterparts, other paralegals at the firm.

Q.

So when you did this comparison were you given instruction

on how to do it?

A.

Yes, I was.

Q.

Who told you how to do it?

A.

I spoke to my attorneys.

Q.

Who?

A.

Who precisely?

Q.

Anyone else?

10

A.

We did run through some of the instructions with Stan.

11

Q.

Anyone else?

12

A.

I got some instruction from Julie Romanow, who is my

13

counterpart paralegal in my office, yes.

14

Q.

What were the search terms that were used?

15

A.

As I said before, they were specific unique names of people

16

and/or roads and/or deputies that would have been in incident

17

reports.

18

Q.

Do you have a list of those somewhere?

19

A.

I do not have a list of them somewhere.

20

Q.

21

A.

I spoke to Hyun.

16:06:27

OF

TH
E

FO

16:06:10

ND

How did you determine which search terms to use?

16:06:48

They were on the incident reports themselves.

Q.

And you didn't keep track of which search terms you used?

A.

Well, they were unique to each incident report.

24

Q.

So did you keep track of the search --

25

A.

I didn't make a list, no.

FR

23

16:05:52

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

16:07:05

Doan - Cross, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

472

Q.

There's no list anywhere that shows the search terms that

you used in order to compare this to the pretrial disclosures?

A.

No, there's no list.

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

No questions, Your Honor.

MR. BYUN:

No questions.

Mr. Walker?

Mr. Como?

11

Next witness.

12

MR. YOUNG:

You can step down.

THE COURT:

Just so you know, I know you've indicated

you've got about three hours' worth of direct.

16

shut off about 5 o'clock, so if you get a convenient place

17

that's five or ten minutes one side or the other, I'll allow

18

you to stop there if it makes more sense.

OF

15

21
22

24
25

We'll look to

16:08:16

Okay?

Yes, Your Honor.


Please state your full name for the record

16:08:32

and spell your first and last name.

FR

23

THE CLERK:

IE

20

MR. YOUNG:

ND

19

16:07:49

Your Honor, plaintiffs call Sheriff Joseph

TH
E

14

Thank you.

FO

THE COURT:

Arpaio.

16:07:18

No questions, Your Honor.

10

13

Nothing further, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:

Joseph M. Arpaio, A-r-p-a-i-o.

Please raise your right hand.


JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,

called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was

16:08:38

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

GB
OW
.C
OM

473

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

Good afternoon, Sheriff.

A.

Good afternoon.

Q.

You ask your officers to go out every day and risk their

lives in order to protect the public and to uphold the law.

A.

Yes.

Q.

It's important, therefore, that you yourself uphold and

obey the law, correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

The oath that you took to enforce the law includes orders

13

of the court that apply to you, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

I'm going to ask that you look at Exhibits 71 and 72, and

16

actually 67.

TH
E

OF

Sheriff, do you have Exhibit 71, which is an expedited

18

motion to vacate hearing and request for entry of judgment that

19

your lawyers filed on your behalf?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND
Yes.

16:10:16

IE

And you approved the filing of that document, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

In that document you acknowledged that you have violated

FR

23

16:09:37

17

22

16:09:24

FO

10

16:09:09

24

the Court's orders and that there are consequences for those

25

violations?

16:10:32

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, objection.

not in evidence.

THE COURT:

This exhibit is

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to sustain the objection to the

extent you're asking him to describe what's in an exhibit

that's not admitted into evidence.

I think it's hearsay.

MR. YOUNG:

I move for the admission of Exhibit 71.

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

Any objection?

Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.


Same objection.

11

MR. COMO:

12

THE COURT:

I'm going to sustain the objection.

13

MR. YOUNG:

Well, Your Honor, may I be heard?

14

THE COURT:

You may.

15

MR. YOUNG:

It's a party admission.

16

THE COURT:

Hmm.

OF

TH
E

I'll join, Your Honor.

Do you have any response to that?

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, I wouldn't object to the

questions, except for the reading of them and his response.

20

he asks the question --

16:11:24

Well, but I posed you a specific question.

It seems to me like it's a party admission, so it doesn't


constitute hearsay.

FR

23

THE COURT:

If

IE

22

ND

19

21

16:11:10

Well, it does strike me that it's a

18

16:10:59

FO

MR. WALKER:

party admission.

16:10:44

Thank you, Your Honor.

10

17

474

24

Do you have a response to that?

25

MS. IAFRATE:

I do not.

16:11:37

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

THE COURT:

All right.

The exhibit is admitted.

The objection's overruled.

Exhibit 71 is admitted.

GB
OW
.C
OM

475

(Exhibit No. 71 is admitted into evidence.)

MR. YOUNG:

Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

violated the Court's orders and that there are consequences for

those violations, correct?

A.

I'm trying to read the --

10

Q.

Well, actually, you don't need to read the document for

11

this next question, for this question I'm asking you.

Sheriff, you acknowledge and appreciate that you have

You acknowledge and appreciate that you have violated


the Court's orders and that there are consequences for those

14

violations, is that right?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And you also consent to a finding of civil contempt against

17

you and the imposition of remedies to address that conduct, is

18

that correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

of 21 facts.

16:12:10

ND

Yes.

OF

TH
E

13

IE

Exhibit 71 contains an Exhibit A, which contains a listing

16:12:26

The first page of Exhibit A is displayed on the

screen, but you can look at it in the document as well.

FR

23

16:11:59

FO

12

22

16:11:46

Do you agree that all of those 21 facts are true?

24

A.

With the caveat that I am the leader of this office and I

25

take the responsibility.

16:13:07

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

Well, with that caveat, you agree that those facts are

true, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, could you look at Exhibit 72, which is the Court's

order to show cause dated February 12, 2015.

A.

Yes.

Q.

You've seen that before, Sheriff, correct?

A.

Yes.

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor, I'd move the admission of

Exhibit 72.

11

MS. IAFRATE:

12

MR. WALKER:

13

MR. COMO:

No objection, Your Honor.


I thought it already was admitted, but I

have no objection, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Exhibit 72 is admitted.

16

(Exhibit No. 72 is admitted into evidence.)

17

BY MR. YOUNG:

18

Q.

19

the judge's order to show cause are true.

20

stipulation, correct?

21

A.

You agree with that

ND

Your attorneys have stipulated that the facts contained in

16:14:09

You mean did I sign off on it or do I agree with it?

IE
Q.

My question is:

Do you agree with your attorneys'

stipulation that the facts contained in the order to show cause

FR

23

16:13:59

OF

15

22

16:13:50

No objection.

TH
E

14

16:13:29

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

476

24

are true?

25

A.

Yes.

16:14:32

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

Q.

preliminary injunction order.

5 on page 40 be displayed.

order that is relevant to this proceeding.

477

Exhibit 67, which has been admitted, is the Court's

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to ask that paragraph

It contains the Court's injunction

You became aware of that injunction when it came out,

correct?

A.

Not necessarily.

Q.

Very shortly after it came out you became aware of it, is

that right?
A.

11

but it was not the -- when it immediately came out I wasn't on

12

a list notifying that it came out on December 23.

13

26 I left town, I was out of state, and didn't come back to the

14

office till January 3rd.

15

Q.

16

correct, on April 29, 2014?

17

A.

I may have been.

18

Q.

Okay.

19

line 9, be displayed.

20

that -- that paragraph 5 of the order begins to be read, if we

21

could show page 67 as well.

24
25

TH
E

OF

16:16:29

And at the bottom of page 66 you'll see

ND

I'm going to ask that page 66, line 23, to page 67,

16:17:05

Page 67 of the deposition

transcript.

FR

23

16:15:52

On December

Well, you were deposed in the Department of Justice's case,

IE

22

When you say "shortly," I don't know what the time period,

FO

10

16:15:34

And at line 7 of page 67 you were asked:

"Do you

recall being aware of this Order when it came out?"


And you answered:

"Yes."

16:17:44

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

478

Was that testimony true when you gave it in the


Department of Justice case?

A.

that it came out, but that was my only knowledge of that order.

Q.

Arizona Republic, correct?

A.

It's possible.

Q.

You do not recall believing that the injunction was vague

or unclear in any way, correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

I was -- I believe before I left town that someone told me

You may have read about the preliminary injunction in The

A.

Can you repeat that question?

11

Q.

You do not recall believing that the injunction was vague

12

or unclear in any way, is that right?

13

A.

I didn't have knowledge of all the facts of that order.

14

Q.

Well, I didn't ask you about that.

15

whether you thought the injunction was vague or unclear in any

16

way, and you don't recall thinking that at that time, is that

17

right?

18

A.

That's right.

19

Q.

And you don't recall feeling that you needed to have the

20

Court explain or clarify what paragraph 5 of the injunction

21

meant, is that true?

TH
E

OF

16:18:48

ND

A.

What time frame?

Q.

At the time that you first learned of it, you do not recall

FR

23

I was asking you about

16:19:00

IE

22

16:18:29

FO

10

16:18:07

24

believing or feeling that you needed to have the Court explain

25

or clarify what paragraph 5 meant?

16:19:18

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

Let me say this.

I del -- delegated this court order to my

subordinates, and also to the counsel that represented me.

Q.

deposition, at page 42.

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Well, I'm going to ask you to look at your March 25, 2015,

I have it here.

THE COURT:
BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

Would you like a paper copy of your deposition, Sheriff?

A.

No, I can read it here.

10

Q.

Okay.

And at line 4 you were asked:

11

"Did you ever feel that you needed to have the Court
explain or clarify what it meant by paragraph 5 of the

13

injunction."

14

TH
E

12

Your response was:

"I don't recall.

That would be

something that the attorneys would look at."


Was that testimony correct?
A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Now, you don't remember one way or the other whether you

19

ever obtained any opinions from your attorneys about the

20

meaning of paragraph 5 of the Court's December 23, 2011, order,

21

is that right?

IE

ND

17

A.

Not that I can recall.

Q.

Okay.

24

A.

My attorneys did, yes.

25

Q.

You were the ultimate decision maker on the decision

FR

23

16:20:34

OF

16

22

16:20:15

FO

Page 42.

16:20:05

It will be coming up, I think.

15

479

16:20:52

You appealed that order, correct?

16:21:11

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

480

whether to appeal that order, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you knew that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction

order on September 25, 2011 -- 2012, rather, correct?

A.

What month?

Q.

September 25, 2012, you knew that the Ninth Circuit

affirmed the injunction on that date, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Sheriff, you never forgot about the preliminary injunction,

GB
OW
.C
OM

correct?

11

A.

12

the -- that order, and also my counsel was heavily involved.

13

Q.

14

deposition of March 25th, 2015, starting at line 5.

15

you were asked:

16

district court had issued its injunction?"

Once again, I wasn't involved.

I said I delegated the --

TH
E

Sheriff, please look at on the screen page 33 of your

OF

18

The question I asked is I said "yes."

You answered:

And your answer was:

A.

FR

23

I knew it
16:22:52

Was your testimony in that regard correct?

IE

22

"No, I don't forget.

was out there."

21

16:22:33

"Forget?

ND

19

And there

"At any time did you ever forget that the

17

20

16:21:52

FO

10

16:21:30

Yes, I mentioned that I heard about it.


THE COURT:

I'm going to interrupt, Mr. Young, just to

24

say that we have again received word that my order is being

25

violated about no tweeting, no phone use, no recording.

I'm

16:23:05

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

481

going to instruct the marshals right -- and I do apologize.

want every member of the public to have access to this

proceeding.

I'm going to instruct the marshals now, without further

direction from me, to remove anyone from the courtroom who is

seen violating my orders.

GB
OW
.C
OM

But if you don't follow the rules of this Court,

All right?

You may proceed, Mr. Young.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

Thank you.

Sheriff, at all times from December 23, 2011, to the

present day, you have known that the Court's injunction was out

11

there, is that right?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

I want you now to look at page 39 of the injunction, again

14

PX 67, starting at line 21 and going to line 27.

15

A.

Line 21, page --

16

Q.

Yes -- yes.

17

on the screen.

TH
E

OF

It's page 39, starting at line 21.

16:24:07

It's also

I want you to focus on the second sentence of that

18

paragraph of the Court's injunction order, which says, quote:

20

"Local law enforcement agencies, such as the MCSO, may not

21

enforce civil federal immigration law."

IE

ND

19

A.

FR

23
24
25

16:23:39

FO

10

22

16:23:23

16:24:25

You see that sentence?

Yes.
THE COURT:

You know, Sheriff, if you want to pull

that microphone over --

16:24:39

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

482

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

-- you can pull it over so you can look at

the screen.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

removed, you have understood that that sentence is correct, is

that right?

A.

What year was this, can I ask?

Q.

Well, this is --

10

A.

2011?

11

Q.

This is page 39 of the Court's December 23, 2011, order.

12

My question to you was:

13

removed, you have always known that it is true that, quote,

14

"local law enforcement agencies, such as the MCSO, may not

15

enforce civil federal immigration law."

16

A.

17

that year on whether it was a federal or civil offense, but

18

that would be accurate if it was a civil immigration law that

19

you're talking about.

20

Q.

21

enforce civil federal immigration law, is that right?

FO

16:25:22

TH
E

Is that right?

16:25:46

ND

OF

I'm only pausing because I believe there was controversy

A.

Okay.

So you knew that you did not have the authority to

Once again, I didn't have all the facts of that order.

16:26:12

delegated that to my counsel and relied on them to abide by

FR

23

16:24:50

Ever since your 287(g) authority was

IE

22

At all times since your agency's 287(g) authority was

24

this order.

So I'm not sure at that time whether I was

25

informed about the civil part of it.

16:26:43

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

483

Q.

Well, you knew, just based on the fact that you no longer

had 287(g) authority for traffic stops, outside of your jails,

that you did not have the authority that you used to have under

287(g) to enforce federal civil immigration law, is that right?

A.

Civil and criminal on the 287(g) --

Q.

Right.

A.

-- but that would be correct then.

Q.

And then the next sentence of that same paragraph states,

quote:

GB
OW
.C
OM

"Defendants are therefore enjoined from detaining

individuals in order to investigate civil violations of federal

11

immigration law."

12

Do you see that?


A.

Yes.

14

Q.

You knew that when you learned of the injunction, right?

15

A.

Well, I don't know which time of that year, but it's

16

possible that that came to my attention.

17

Q.

18

Department of Justice case was taken, you could not recall

19

directing that anything be done to make sure that your office

20

was going to comply with the injunction, is that right?

21

A.

16:27:33

OF

TH
E

13

ND

As of April 2014, which is when your deposition in the

16:28:09

Can you repeat that question?

IE
Q.

At the time of your Department of Justice deposition in

April 2014, you could not recall directing that anything be

FR

23

16:27:24

FO

10

22

16:27:07

24

done to make sure that your office was going to comply with the

25

injunction, is that correct?

16:28:29

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

I mentioned previously that this was

delegated to my staff and to the -- and the counsel was looking

into it.

Q.

2014, deposition, starting at line 21.

"As to paragraph 5 on page 40" -- referring to the injunction

order -- "did you direct that anything be done to make sure

your office was going to comply with that part?"

GB
OW
.C
OM

No, it's not correct.

484

I'm going to ask that you look at page 67 of that April 29,

And your response was:

"I don't recall."

Was that testimony correct?

11

A.

12

counsel and it was delegated to my staff to carry it out.

13

Q.

14

deposition transcript?

15

A.

Which one are you talking about?

16

Q.

The one that we're looking at right now from April 29,

17

2014.

18

A.

I'm not sure whether I reviewed it.

19

Q.

Did you make any changes to it?

20

A.

21

Q.

16:29:38

ND

OF

TH
E

Did you have a chance to review your Department of Justice

Did I make changes?

In what form?

Q.

Any form.

24

A.

No.

25

Q.

You never asked either Chief Deputy Sheridan or Chief Sands

FR

16:29:53

Yes.

A.

23

16:29:16

Once again, I mentioned that this order was reviewed by the

IE

22

16:28:51

FO

10

And you were asked:

Do you recall making any changes to it at all?

16:30:05

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

485

what they were doing to make sure that your office complied

with the injunction, correct?

A.

handled by Chief Sands.

Q.

never asked either of them what they were doing to make sure

that your office complied with the injunction, is that right?

A.

I don't recall whether I did or did not.

Q.

Okay.

Well, Chief Sheridan wasn't really in control.

It was

Well, in either case, I'm asking about both of them.

You

I'm going to ask you to look at your March 25, 2015,

deposition starting at page 51, line 13.

11

You were asked:

13

the office complied with the injunction?"

TH
E

them, Sheridan or Sands, what they were doing to make sure that

14

Your answer was:

15

Was that testimony true and correct when you gave it

"No."

several weeks ago?

17

A.

18

not involved and I delegated to Sands.

19

Q.

20

make sure that your office complied with the injunction,

21

correct?

16:31:12

OF

16

I think I just answered that, that I -- that Sheridan was

IE

ND

And you didn't ask either of them what they were doing to

A.

I think I answered that, too, that I don't recall.

16:31:38

I may

have.

FR

23

16:30:52

"Did you ever ask them, either of

12

22

16:30:30

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Q.

Okay.

Well, at the time you just answered no, was that

25

answer not correct during your deposition?

16:31:47

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

I said they may have.

2
3

THE COURT:

I may have.

You know, Sheriff, you need to listen

GB
OW
.C
OM

486

carefully --

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Yeah.

-- to the questions that Mr. Young asks

you, and you need to answer his questions.

you want to say, that you want to get out about what he's

asking you, but Ms. Iafrate will have a full opportunity to ask

you questions where you can explain your side of the case.

You may have things

11

questions and you need to answer only Mr. Young's questions.


THE WITNESS:

13

THE COURT:

14

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

TH
E

Okay?

Yeah.

15

BY MR. YOUNG:

16

Q.

17

you never asked either Sheridan or Sands what they were doing

18

to make sure that the office complied with the injunction.

OF

S
ND

Are you saying that your deposition testimony on that

20

point was incorrect?

21

A.

16:32:49

I'm saying I may have.

IE
Q.

So you're saying something different now than you did

during your deposition.

FR

23

16:32:35

So Sheriff, in your deposition on March 25, you stated that

19

22

16:32:26

FO

until that time you need to listen carefully to Mr. Young's

And

10

12

16:32:08

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

You've never disciplined Chief Deputy Sheridan or

16:33:05

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

487

Chief Sands because your office failed to obey the injunction,

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, I want to talk with you a bit about Chief Sands.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You know Chief Sands generally to be a truthful

person, correct?

A.

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Q.

You cannot recall any instance where Chief Sands ever lied

about anything, is that right?


A.

I don't recall.

11

Q.

You don't recall any instance where he lied, is that right?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

Now, Chief Sands says that he wanted, and told you that he

14

wanted, that all deputies in the entire MCSO learn about the

15

injunction, but that you told him that it should go out only to

16

the Human Smuggling Unit.

TH
E

You don't deny that, correct?


A.

Pursuant to the advice of my attorney.

19

Q.

All right.

20

you don't have any reason to doubt Chief Sands' testimony on

21

that point, is that right?

Well, with that caveat, you don't contradict or


16:34:17

IE

ND

18

A.

That's correct.

Q.

Now, Chief Sands also testified about a discussion he had

FR

23

16:33:55

OF

17

22

16:33:34

FO

10

16:33:19

24

with you after the injunction was granted when he told you that

25

where there were no state charges, he thought that your office

16:34:36

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

488

needed to release illegal immigrants rather than take them to

ICE or the Border Patrol, and that he specifically mentioned

the Court preliminary injunction during that conversation with

you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you recall that testimony that he gave here while

you were here?

A.

It may have happened, yes.

Q.

That conversation that he described with you may have

happened, correct?

That's what he said.

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

So you don't deny Chief Sands' testimony on that point, is

12

that right?

13

A.

No.

14

Q.

You mean no, you don't deny it, is that right?

15

A.

Could you repeat the question?

16

Q.

Do you deny Chief Sands' testimony?

17

A.

Can you repeat the question on the testimony?

18

Q.

Yeah.

19

issued he told you that in a case which he called a drop-house

20

scenario, where there were no state charges to be brought, he

21

thought that you would need to release an illegal immigrant

TH
E

OF

16:35:18

IE

ND

Chief Sands testified that after the injunction was

16:35:35

rather than take him or her to ICE or the Border Patrol.

FR

23

16:35:06

FO

10

22

16:34:54

Do you recall his testimony on that point?

24

A.

So you were referring to the drop house?

25

Q.

To that scenario that he called a drop-house scenario that

16:35:52

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

489

he discussed with you this issue.

A.

the drop-house investigation.

unfortunately, many of the people coming into our country are

held hostage in these drop houses.

it be possible to call the Phoenix Police, or even use some of

the occupants as material witnesses to the human smuggling

investigation.

told him that.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Well, we had -- I had a little problem with that regarding


When you have a drop house,

So my only point was would

That was what I was thinking of and may have

Q.

11

heard Chief Sands' testimony here yesterday, do you deny

12

Chief Sands' testimony here under oath today?

13

A.

14

why.

15

Q.

16

shortly after the injunction, correct?

17

A.

18

observation talking to me, two minutes, he said.

19

Q.

20

situation where you were not going to bring state charges

21

against someone who was an illegal immigrant, is that right?

My question was, and you

16:36:40

TH
E

He may have said that, and I gave you my response as to

16:37:00

OF

So you're saying he may have said that to you sometime

I think he said it only took him two minutes to make that

16:37:31

IE

ND

You do not recall ever asking an attorney what to do in the

A.

I may have talked to counsel.

Q.

Well, you don't actually recall an instance we were you did

FR

23

Sheriff, that wasn't my question.

FO

10

22

16:36:17

24

talk to counsel about what your office should do in that

25

situation, is that right?

16:37:51

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

A.

I have a lot of meetings, so I don't

recall every meeting that I have.

Q.

deposition, and 304, your deposition from April 14, 2015.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I don't recall.

490

Well, I'm going to ask you to look at page 303 of your

And you were asked:

"Did you ever ask an attorney

what you should do" -- this is at line 21 -- "what you should

do in a situation where you're not going to bring state

charges, but where the person's an illegal immigrant?"


You answered:

10

"The possibility exists."

And you were asked:

"Do you recall ever asking an

11

attorney what to do in that situation, in view of the

12

preliminary injunction?"

You answered "No" and said "I -- once again, I figured

TH
E

13
14

that Sands and others would be dealing with attorneys.

15

seldom met with the attorneys."

I very
16:38:57

Was that answer correct at the time you gave it?

OF

16
A.

Yes, and I think I said that a few minutes ago.

18

Q.

Well, you never told anyone else that they should get legal

19

advice on that situation, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND

I had counsel.

16:39:10

IE

But you never told anyone that they should get legal advice

in that situation, is that right?


A.

Not that I can recall.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

to 10, you were asked this question:

FR

23

17

22

16:38:41

FO

16:38:26

Well, on page 304 of your deposition, from lines 5


"Did you ever tell

16:39:29

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

491

anybody else that -- in your agency that they should get advice

from an attorney in the situation where you have an illegal

immigrant but no state charges?

they should get advice on what to do?"


No."

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did you ever tell someone that

Your answer was:

Was that testimony correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, you were here yesterday when Sergeant Palmer

testified, right?
A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

had with you about whether the preliminary injunction allowed

13

your office to keep certain people at the MCSO who were not

14

charged with crimes but who were believed to be illegal

15

immigrants?

16

A.

17

presume it did occur.

18

Q.

19

and refused to obey your illegal order, or what he considered

20

to be illegal order.

21

that conversation that he described?

TH
E

You heard him talk about an argument that he says he

You recall his testimony on that point?

OF

ND

That's the testimony where he says that he stood his ground

You think that that may have occurred,

A.

That's his version.

Q.

Okay.

24

A.

Yes, I -- I don't give orders to sergeants.

25

Q.

Sheriff, I'm going to play a section of your deposition

FR

23

16:40:20

I didn't recall that conversation until just recently, so I

IE

22

16:40:01

FO

10

16:39:48

16:40:41

Well, you don't deny what he says, correct?

16:41:01

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

from March 25.

It's video number 7 of line -- page 184, line

14, to page 185, line 15.

GB
OW
.C
OM

492

(Videotaped deposition clip played as follows:)

"Question:

Well, what Sergeant Palmer seems to be

saying is that you told him, and you told Lieutenant Sousa to

tell him, that he should keep those people there, even though

they weren't going to to be charged with a crime, to give you

time to get to Enforcement Support Division so that you could

be there and release them and tell the media that you were
releasing them because ICE was refusing to take them.

11

"Is Sergeant Palmer correct in that statement?

12

"Answer:

Once again, I -- I don't have a recollection

of, if I talked to him, everything that he said.

TH
E

13
14

"You don't deny what he's saying; correct?

15

"Answer:

I'm -- once again, I still don't recall what

he's saying.

17

what context it was in, and what the reasoning was.

22

"Answer:

I'm not saying I'm denying it.

I don't,

16:42:32

first of all, I don't personally recall specifically the


incident; number two, what the context of the conversation was.
It could be accurate, but I'm not sure."

FR

23

of Sergeant Palmer's interview as set forth in Exhibit 101?

ND

21

"Do you deny anything that's in the transcript pages

IE

20

I don't know if he said it, he didn't say it,

18

16:42:11

OF

16

19

16:41:45

FO

10

16:41:22

24

(Videotaped deposition clip concluded.)

25

So if I can summarize, Sheriff, you think that it's

16:42:50

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

493

possible that you did have that conversation with

Sergeant Palmer, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Over the course of 2012 and 2013, you issued various press

releases relating to immigration issues, correct?

A.

Along with many others, yes.

Q.

Your public information office helps you with those press

releases, correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And they get information for those press releases from

11

talking to the people who are responsible for the particular

12

arrests or operations, right?

13

A.

Normally, yes.

14

Q.

Your press releases reflect your views, correct?

15

A.

It reflects the -- the facts of the investigations, if

16

that's what you're talking about, plus also some comments I had

17

made on general terms that has nothing to do with the

18

investigation.

19

Q.

20

you see a problem or something being wrong, you tell your

21

public information office to change it, is that right?

16:43:41

OF

TH
E

FO

16:43:28

ND

Before they go out, you look at your press releases, and if

A.

16:44:06

Normally I do look at them, but I rely on the facts and

also the person preparing the press release.

FR

23

16:43:13

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Q.

You normally look at the quotations that are attributed to

25

you in your press releases to make sure that they accurately

16:44:31

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

494

reflect your thoughts, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You cannot think of any press release that your office has

issued that you would not stand behind today, is that right?

A.

possible.

Q.

release that you would not stand behind, is that right?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

There may be a few occasions I don't remember, but it's

Well, as you sit here today, you cannot recall any press

I'm saying again there could be some facts that may be

wrong or that could have occurred and we find out later, but in

11

general terms, I should and will stand by those press releases.

12

Q.

13

releases that is wrong?

14

A.

There's so many of them, I can't keep track.

15

Q.

So you don't recall any right now that are wrong, is that

16

right?

17

A.

18

information.

19

Q.

20

information office that they quoted you on something that they

21

should not have quoted you on, is that right?

16:45:33

OF

TH
E

Do you recall as you sit here today any of your press

I know in history that some may have been wrong on

16:45:47

IE

ND

You cannot think of ever telling anyone in the public

A.

It's possible, but I don't remember any specific instance.

Q.

Your press releases let your constituents know what your

FR

23

16:45:09

FO

10

22

16:44:43

24

office is doing on any matter, is that right?

25

A.

Well, it also lets the news media know what we're doing,

16:46:09

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

495

not just the people of Maricopa County.

Q.

what your office is doing.

do?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Now, in your statements in televised interviews you also

endeavor to tell the news media and people, generally, what

your office is doing, is that right?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

For all of 2012, you cannot name a single instance where

11

the MCSO, your office, acted differently from what you were

12

advocating in your public statements, is that right?

13

A.

I can't recall.

14

Q.

You can't recall any particular time when the MCSO did

15

something different from what you were advocating publicly in

16

your statements, is that right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

People in that time period were coming to you and wanting

19

to know your position and what you were doing about the illegal

20

immigration problem, is that correct?

21

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

16:46:29

16:47:16

OF

TH
E

FO

16:46:50

ND

Q.

Counsel, who?

16:47:33

I didn't get your first part of it.

Well, during 2012, say, there were many people who were

coming to you and asking you what your position was on illegal

FR

23

Is that what your press releases

IE

22

So it lets both the news media and your constituents know

24

immigration issues and wanting to know what you and your office

25

were doing about the illegal immigration problem, is that

16:47:55

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

496

right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you thought the public actually across the whole

country, including in Arizona, were very interested in that

problem, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You wanted the public to know that you were enforcing the

illegal immigration laws, correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Let me ask you to look at Exhibit 75, and I'm going to --

Yes, actually, if we could give that to him, and if we

12

could show it to the witness on the screen, that would be great

13

as well.

14

TH
E

11

16

A.

Yes.

17

MR. YOUNG:

MR. WALKER:

FR

23
24
25

Any objection?

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

22

THE COURT:

ND

19

21

Your Honor, I move the admission of

Exhibit 75.

16:48:43

OF

December 30, 2011, correct?

20

16:48:17

Exhibit 75 is one of your press releases dated

15

18

16:48:07

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. COMO:
THE COURT:

No objection.

16:48:50

No objection.
None, Your Honor.
Exhibit 75 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 75 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. YOUNG:

16:48:58

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

497

Q.

So this is a press release you issued seven days after the

preliminary injunction was issued by this Court, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And in that, in the second paragraph from the bottom, you

stated:

GB
OW
.C
OM

"I will continue to enforce illegal immigration laws."


Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

That was your view at the time?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Exhibit 76, which has been admitted, I'm going to ask you

11

to look at that one next.

12

release a few weeks later.

13

that you would continue to crack down on immigration and will

14

not be deterred by activist groups and politicians for

15

enforcing all immigration laws.

That's a February 9, 2012, news

TH
E

And in that one your office stated

16:49:58

Was that your position at the time?

OF

16
A.

18

immigration laws which I can enforce."

19

Q.

20

A.

21

releases are not accurate.

It should be "illegal

ND

But it doesn't say that in the press release?


Well, I'm saying I mentioned before sometimes the press

16:50:24

IE

And that's not a quote from me,

that's a statement.
Q.

FR

23

Well, that's somewhat in error.

17

22

16:49:25

FO

16:49:16

Sheriff, sometime in the early part of 2012 you did an

24

interview with Jorge Ramos on Univision in which you told him

25

that on March 1, 2012, you would be publishing or saying

16:50:46

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

something about President Obama's birth certificate.

Do you recall that interview?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes.

Q.

I'm going to play you a section.

Exhibit 202B.

I'm going to -- it's

JORGE RAMOS:

What do you make of the --

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, can we just confirm that

498

this is in evidence?
THE COURT:

Is this in evidence?

10

MR. YOUNG:

It isn't, but I'm -- based on his

11

testimony, I'm going to move that 202B and 202C, which are

12

excerpts from that interview, be put into evidence.


MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor.

TH
E

13

Now I'm hearing

that they're just excerpts.

I would ask for the rule of

15

completion if he wants to play this, and also it's hearsay and

16

lacks foundation.

17

THE COURT:

Well, why don't you lay a little bit more

foundation, Mr. Young, so that I understand with respect to

19

both 202A and 202B if you're going to move those.

24
25

ND

Yes.

All right?

Well, the best foundation would be

16:52:08

for Sheriff Arpaio to look at it and say that that's him and
that's the interview he gave.

He's already said he recalls

giving the interview with Jorge Ramos.

FR

23

MR. YOUNG:

IE

22

18

21

16:51:49

OF

14

20

16:51:32

FO

16:51:08

These videos are with

Jorge Ramos.
THE COURT:

I'll let you play them and then he can

16:52:24

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

499

identify whether or not they are that -- whether he gave that

interview.

MR. YOUNG:

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Thank you, Your Honor.

So Sheriff, could you take a look at --

THE COURT:

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

If in fact you've established a basis.

Sheriff, could you take a look at video Exhibit 202B.


(Exhibit 202B is played as follows:)

10

JORGE RAMOS:

What do you make of -- of Romley's

11

self-deportation policy?

Do you think that could work?

12

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

Well, I don't know about that

situation.

Why wait for them to self- -- leave the country?

14

Why not enforce the laws here in the United States if they're

15

here illegally and send them back to their country?

16

this self-deportation have to do with it?

OF

TH
E

13

17

JORGE RAMOS:

19

that's completely --

ND

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

IE

JORGE RAMOS:

That's --

Well --

16:53:17

-- unreasonable.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

Well, we've done all right here.

They say over a hundred thousand --

FR

23

16:53:05

11 million undocumented immigrants, Sheriff Arpaio?

22

What does

But how are you gonna to send back

18

21

16:52:45

FO

20

16:52:32

24

JORGE RAMOS:

On buses or airplanes?

25

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

What's the plan?

If -- if every state did what I'm

16:53:26

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

doing, I think we wouldn't have a problem.

2
3

JORGE RAMOS:

Are you still arresting, detaining

GB
OW
.C
OM

500

undocumented immigrants in Arizona?

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

Yes, we are.

We just arrested 31

more recently coming into our country illegally.

them, the majority we book into our jail, we don't turn it over

to ICE.

illegals.

stop -- stopping doing my job.

And we're gonna continue to raid businesses that hire


The majority have false identification.

So I'm not

(Playing of Exhibit 202B is concluded.)

11

BY MR. YOUNG:

12

Q.

13

Jorge Ramos, correct?

14

A.

I have many with him.

15

Q.

I'll tell you, it was published on March 1, 2012.

16

available on YouTube.

22

TH
E

ND

MR. YOUNG:
THE COURT:

16:54:10

Your Honor, I move the admission of 202B.


Objections?

MS. IAFRATE:

the rule of completion.

FR

23

It's

OF

Yes.

A.

IE

21

What -- which one is this?

Was that you in that interview with Jorge Ramos?

19
20

16:54:02

Sheriff, that's your interview, part of your interview with

17
18

16:53:40

FO

10

Arresting

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.

16:54:23

I would object as to

It's just a portion.

Well, I'm going to overrule that

24

objection, but if you wish to play the rest of the portion and

25

establish for me that the rule of completeness would require

16:54:35

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

its admission, I'll let you do that as well.

MR. WALKER:

Your Honor, I'll join Ms. Iafrate's

GB
OW
.C
OM

501

objection, but I would also object on the grounds that we were

not provided this exhibit.

any of the trial exhibits until Tuesday evening.

As Your Honor knows, we didn't see

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

Well, the objection is that we were not provided the


exhibit in advance.

10

THE COURT:

11

Well, you've seen it now.


Yes.

Well, I didn't make anybody provide

exhibits in advance in this case.

12

MR. YOUNG:

Yeah, Your Honor, actually we did -- the

parties did exchange exhibits late last week, and I think

14

Mr. Walker's not having seen -- I think we've also given the

15

video to Mr. Walker's office now, but his late -- recent

16

appearance in the case probably means that he hasn't seen all

17

of them.

THE COURT:

ND

MR. YOUNG:

Yes.

THE COURT:

202B is admitted.

That was 202B?


16:55:42

(Exhibit No. 202B is admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. YOUNG:

FR

23

IE

21

16:55:27

In any case, I'm overruling

his objection and admitting the exhibit.

20

22

All right.

18

OF

TH
E

13

19

16:55:11

FO

16:54:57

24

Q.

Now, you told Mr. Ramos, Sheriff, that a majority were

25

being booked into jail and not being turned over to ICE.

That

16:55:49

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

502

means that a minority were not being booked into jail and were

being turned over to ICE, is that right?

A.

the human smuggling law and the employer sanction laws,

especially on the ID theft.

into the jail.

Q.

to Mr. Ramos that a majority were booked into jail and not

turned over to ICE.

I was mentioning we still had the authority to enforce

So they were arrested and booked

Well, actually, listen to my question, Sheriff.

You said

That means that there were some who were

not booked into jail and were turned over to ICE, correct?

11

MS. IAFRATE:

12

THE COURT:

13

THE WITNESS:

Overruled.

TH
E

So the question is were they turned over

to ICE or not turned over to ICE?

15

BY MR. YOUNG:

16

Q.

17

book them into jail because you didn't have state charges to

18

bring against them, is that right?

19

A.

20

elaborated.

21

talking about during the whole program.

24
25

16:56:44

OF

Some of them were turned over to ICE because you did not

I don't believe I

I don't really remember the context that we were

16:56:55

IE

ND

Well, I didn't say that to him.

Q.

I'm going to ask you to look 202C, which is part of the

same interview.

FR

23

16:56:31

Foundation, Your Honor.

14

22

16:56:09

FO

10

No.

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. IAFRATE:

similar objection?

Your Honor, could I just have the

Now it looks like we've cut and pasted

16:57:18

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

certain portions of the same video.

THE COURT:

That's correct.

And if you want, again,

GB
OW
.C
OM

503

Ms. Iafrate, if you want, based on the rule of completeness, to

play part of the video to convince me it's appropriate, part or

all of it, I'll allow you to do that in cross-examination.

MR. YOUNG:

And I'll note, Your Honor, just for the

record, that we did exchange with defendants not just the

portions of interviews, videos that we're playing here, but

also the entirety of the video as it may exist on YouTube or


otherwise.

11

THE COURT:

All right.

And so you're going to have to

convince me that the rule of completeness requires it, but if

13

you can, I will allow you to play it.

TH
E

12

MR. YOUNG:

So could we have video 202C, Exhibit 202C.

15

(Exhibit 202C is played as follows:)

16

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

OF

14

America, Texas, and Arizona, I've never had any problems with a

18

Latino.

22

So just because -They don't.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:
JORGE RAMOS:

FR

23

ND

21

JORGE RAMOS:

IE

20

They love me.

-- I'm enforcing --

16:58:14

They don't.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:
JORGE RAMOS:

16:57:58

Having lived in Mexico City, South

17

19

16:57:50

FO

10

16:57:34

-- the state --

They don't, Sheriff Arpaio.

24

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

25

JORGE RAMOS:

-- laws they don't like --

They don't -- you're making fun of

16:58:15

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

these, but -SHERIFF ARPAIO:

JORGE RAMOS:

No, they did.

GB
OW
.C
OM

-- they don't -- but they don't love

you.

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

JORGE RAMOS:

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

JORGE RAMOS:

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

No, I'm not making fun.

Well, how do you know they don't?

You are making fun of the fact --

10

JORGE RAMOS:

11

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

No.

-- that you --

How do you know?

How do you know they don't like me?

13

may be --

JORGE RAMOS:

15

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

16

JORGE RAMOS:

17

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

18

JORGE RAMOS:

How do you know?

There

I've seen --- a small group --

16:58:32

I've seen -- I've seen --- of activists.

-- many polls, I've spoken to many

OF

14

undocumented immigrants, and they are simply telling me is

20

this: that for them, you are --

IE

SHERIFF ARPAIO:
JORGE RAMOS:

-- the voice of America.

24

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

25

JORGE RAMOS:

16:58:37

Well, what poll?

hatred --

FR

23

ND

19

22

16:58:23

How do you know?

TH
E

12

21

16:58:20

Yes, because you are making fun --

FO

504

I got my own poll.

-- and discrimination.

The face of

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

Okay.

All right.

That's what they

want to say, then I'll tell you what.

I'm gonna tell I'm going

to continue to enforce the laws.

doing, get the laws changed in Washington or in the state of

Arizona --

GB
OW
.C
OM

If they don't like what I'm

JORGE RAMOS:

SHERIFF ARPAIO:

(Playing of Exhibit 202C is concluded.)

-- then I won't be enforcing the law.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Sheriff Arpaio, that's you in that video, correct?

11

A.

Sure is.
MR. YOUNG:

13

MS. IAFRATE:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. COMO:

16

MR. WALKER:

Anyone else?

No objection, Your Honor.

16:59:19

OF

I would object on the additional grounds

Overruled.

I will admit 202C.

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 202C is admitted into evidence.)

ND

19
20

BY MR. YOUNG:

21

Q.

16:59:34

IE

Sheriff, in your discussion with Mr. Ramos you mention that

you'll continue to enforce the laws, and that if people don't


like what you're doing, then they should change the laws in

FR
25

Same objection, Your Honor.

relevance, Your Honor.

18

24

Your Honor, I move the admission of 202C.

TH
E

12

23

16:59:05

FO

Q.

22

16:58:55

Let me give you an example.

10

17

505

Washington, D.C., or in Arizona.


Now, you know that the laws that are enacted in

16:59:48

Arpaio - Direct, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15

506

Washington, D.C., are federal laws, right?

A.

happens to be a state law, so there -- there is an exercise up

to the Supreme Court and Congress to change the laws that may

affect state and local authorities.

Q.

Arizona state laws.

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Well, I -- I think they have looked into the 1070, which

Well, Congress makes federal laws, right?

They don't make

You agree with that, right?

Yes.

THE COURT:

Mr. Young, I note we're at 5 o'clock.

many more questions do you have to bring you to a reasonable

11

termination point?

will take just a few -- couple minutes, Your Honor.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

15

MR. YOUNG:

Could we look at an admitted exhibit,

which is Exhibit 77.

17

BY MR. YOUNG:

18

Q.

19

office issued, and in the last paragraph on page 2 your office

20

says that you remain, quote, adamant about the fact that your

21

office will continue to enforce both state and federal illegal

IE

ND

Now, Exhibit 77 is a March 28, 2012, news release that your

17:01:08

immigration laws as long as the laws are on the books.

FR

23

17:00:43

OF

16

22

17:00:33

If we could do one more exhibit, which

TH
E

13

MR. YOUNG:

How

FO

10

12

17:00:19

Do you see that?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

That was your view as of March 28, 2012, correct?

17:01:24

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 507

A.

That was -- that's another statement in the press release.

It's not my quote.

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. YOUNG:

Your Honor, this would be a fine time for

THE COURT:

All right.

Let me ask, Mr. McDonald, I just -- I guess I want to

a break.

Thank you.

consult with the parties, your estimate's still about three

hours, so you would think maybe two more on direct, or two,

maybe a little bit more on direct, Mr. Young?


MR. YOUNG:

I hope so, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT:

All right.

12

And then how long for you, Ms. Iafrate?

13

MS. IAFRATE:
morning, Your Honor.

15

THE COURT:

Maybe an hour and a half.

this morning.

All right.

Mr. Walker?

18

MR. WALKER:

17

22

Probably about 15 minutes, Your Honor.

At this point I would think no more than 15

minutes.

THE COURT:

17:02:21

All right.

And then the second round

would be -- it sounds to me, Mr. McDonald, like we will be done


tomorrow.

FR

23

17:02:09

IE

21

MR. COMO:

ND

19
20

I think that is what you said

OF

16

I can't remember what I said this

TH
E

14

17:01:58

FO

10

17:01:38

24

MR. McDONALD:

25

THE COURT:

I think you're right.

If in fact we need to have you come back

17:02:28

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 508

Friday morning, we will -- well, I'll go long enough tomorrow

to make sure you can make your funeral Friday morning.

3
4

MR. McDONALD:

Thank you.

question?

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. McDONALD:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Judge, can I ask one

17:02:42

And again, it would be a very limited

area.

I would like the opportunity, and again, I know this is

a civil hearing, but if there's facts or information that I

felt the Court should have at some point to make a decision on


the federal -- or the criminal contempt issue, would I be

11

permitted to ask some limited questions to develop that?

12

you say no, I will respect that.

FO

10

THE COURT:

If

Here's what I think I'm inclined to do.

TH
E

13

17:02:58

don't want to gum up this hearing.

As I've said before, you're

15

entitled, to the extent you believe matters may relate to

16

criminal contempt, to be heard in this hearing that come up by

17

the other parties.

But I think what I'm going to be inclined to do,

18

especially in light of the fact that we're likely looking at

20

some June continuances to have some matters done, is if there's

21

time at the end after we've heard all the facts and all the

IE

17:03:31

testimony the parties want to offer, and even if there's not


time at the end of that, I think I'm inclined to give the

FR

23

ND

19

22

17:03:16

OF

14

24

opportunity for all -- all those potential contemnors who have

25

retained counsel to address the question of whether or not I

17:03:56

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 509

should, in addition to finding civil contempt, find criminal

contempt.

GB
OW
.C
OM

So I'd -- and if you believe that you need to put on

evidence at that time, even though I won't at that time have

appointed the United States Attorney to prosecute the case, I

may consider taking evidence at that time.

MR. McDONALD:

THE COURT:

10

That makes it clear.

I said I may consider it.

I didn't say

I'd grant it, necessarily, but I do think I will allow you to


make a proffer if I don't do evidence.

11
12

Thank you.

And yes, Mr. Eisenberg, you can be heard at that time,


too.
MR. EISENBERG:

Thank you, Your Honor.

TH
E

13

I just want to

14

inquire whether you think that would be Friday or whether the

15

opportunity, if the Court allows it, will be in June.


THE COURT:

17

MR. EISENBERG:

18

THE COURT:

All right.

ND

19

Do we want to be on the safe side and

start at 8:30 tomorrow?

21

anybody?

IE

Thank you.

Anything else?

20

Is that going to inconvenience

MR. YOUNG:

I think it's fine with plaintiffs, Your

24

THE COURT:

All right.

25

MR. COMO:

17:04:48

Honor.

FR

23

17:04:37

It will be in June.

OF

16

22

17:04:24

FO

Okay.

17:04:11

Let's -- Mr. Como?

No problem, Your Honor.

17:04:57

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 510

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

Mr. Walker?
8:30 would be fine, Your Honor.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Let's start at 8:30, just to make sure

we're -- we're going to be able to do that.

MR. YOUNG:

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

THE CLERK:

All rise, please.

(Proceedings recessed at 5:05 p.m.)

FO

10
11
12

TH
E

13
14
15

OF

16
17

18

22

FR

23

IE

21

ND

19
20

24
25

We'll see you at 8:30.

17:05:07

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/22/15 Evidentiary Hrg 511

1
C E R T I F I C A T E

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
3
4
5
6
7

I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly

appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

FO

10

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of

12

the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

13

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

14

was prepared under my direction and control.

TH
E

11

16
17

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 23rd day of April,


2015.

18

22

FR

23

IE

21

ND

19
20

24
25

OF

15

s/Gary Moll

You might also like