You are on page 1of 285

1

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 21, 2015
9 o'clock 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)

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, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

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.


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

8
9

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

FO

10
11
12

TH
E

13
14
15

OF

16
17

For the Defendant Arpaio:

18

21
22

FR

23

IE

20

ND

19

24
25

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

Thomas P. Liddy
Senior Litigation Counsel
Douglas A. Schwab
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Services Division
222 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 506-8066
A. Melvin McDonald, Esq.
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 263-1700

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

A P P E A R A N C E S

2
3

For the Defendants:

Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.


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

4
5
6

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Richard K. Walker, Esq.


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

8
9

12
13
14
15

FO

11

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

TH
E

10

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

OF

16
17

18

22

FR

23
24
25

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

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

IE

21

ND

19
20

GB
OW
.C
OM

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

A P P E A R A N C E S

For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.


DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.
2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
(602) 237-5076

5
6
7
8

For Sergeant Brett Palmer:

Christopher T. Rapp, Esq.


RYAN, RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.
3200 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1600
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
(602) 280-1000

ALSO PRESENT:

Chief Robert Warshaw


Deputy Chief John Girvin
Deputy Chief Raul Martinez

FO

10
11
12

TH
E

13
14
15

OF

16
17

18

22

FR

23

IE

21

ND

19
20

24
25

GB
OW
.C
OM

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

I N D E X
Witness:

DAVID TROMBI

Direct Examination by Mr. Pochoda


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda
Examination by the Court
Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate

BRETT PALMER

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang


Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang
Examination by the Court
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate

11
12
13
14

FO

10

BRIAN SANDS

TH
E

Page

Direct Examination by Mr. Young

16

20
21
22

E-mail to 27 recipients from Chief Trombi re


"Past Video Recordings" dated 5/14/2014

67

38

24
25

155
216
232
245
251
253

254

Admitted
59

Dkt 494 Preliminary Injunction Order dated


12/23/2011

260

100

Dkt 881, Order dated 2/12/2015

198

103

The Briefing Board, Number 13-40 dated


5/28/2013 (Melendres Compliance 000070)

182

FR

23

Description

ND

19

47
93
130
137
140
149
152

E X H I B I T S

No.

IE

18

OF

15

17

GB
OW
.C
OM

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

118

MCSO Memorandum to Trombi from Jakowinicz re


"Deputy Armendariz #1764" re complaints dated
2/21/2013 (MELC003737)

67

119

MCSO Memorandum to Jakowinicz from Trombi re


meeting with Armendariz dated 3/5/2013
(MELC003736)

85

136

Structural chart of the MCSO divisions (2007)


(MEL049519 - MEL049524)

97

151

Emails re "Video Collection" dated 2/19/2014


(MELC134397 - MELC134406)

49

154

MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings

110

155

Letter to Mr. Warshaw from Gerard Sheridan re


meeting that occurred 5/14/2014 dated
5/14/2014 (MELC134487 - MELC134488)

113

156

Redacted E-mail chain re "Scenarios for review


based on judge's order" (MELCl14918 MELCl14922; MELCl14949 - MELCl14954)

133

176

MCSO Memorandum from Palmer re "Video/Audio"


Dated 5/19/2014 (MELC098107 - MELC098109)

192

185

E-mail Chain from J. Sousa to T. Casey et al.


Re "Scenarios for Review Based on Judge's
Order" dated 1/24/2012 (MELCl14950-MELCl14954)

131

18

21
22

189

FR

23
24
25

E-mail from T. Casey to B. Sands et al. Re


"Melendres Order on Summary Judgment" dated
12/23/2011 (MELC165670 - MELC165672)

ND

20

187

IE

19

GB
OW
.C
OM

Admitted

FO

Description

TH
E

No.

OF

E X H I B I T S

256

E-mail Chain from T. Casey to L. Thomas et al. 189


Re "Scenarios For Review Based on Judge's
Order" dated 1/24/2012 (MELC165690 - MELC165695)

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

P R O C E E D I N G S

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
3

THE COURT:

Please be seated.

THE CLERK:

This is civil case 07-2513, Manuel de

Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., versus Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

This is the time set for an evidentiary hearing.

7
8

Counsel, please announce your appearance for the


record.

MS. WANG:

Good morning, Your Honor.

the ACLU for the plaintiffs.

11

THE COURT:

Good morning, Ms. Wang.

12

MR. YOUNG:

Good morning, Your Honor.

TH
E

THE COURT:

15

MR. SEGURA:

plaintiffs.

22

Good morning.

Andre Segura of the ACLU

09:01:17

Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona, for

ND

Good morning.

MR. POCHODA:

Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for

09:01:27

plaintiffs.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

Mr. Young.

MR. BENDOR:

19
20

Stanley Young,

OF

for the plaintiffs.

17
18

09:01:01

Covington & Burling, for the plaintiffs.

14

16

Cecillia Wang of

FO

10

13

09:00:53

THE COURT:

Good morning.

MS. IAFRATE:

Good morning, Your Honor.

24

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.

25

Carrie Seahorn.

Michele

With me at the table is

Also representing Sheriff Arpaio is Tom Liddy

09:01:37

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

and Douglas Schwab with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.

THE COURT:

MR. BIRNBAUM:

Good morning.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Good morning, Your Honor.

Gary

Birnbaum appearing specially for Deputy Chief John MacIntyre.

Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I have

another engagement this afternoon.

Patel will be sitting in this chair for me.

THE COURT:

MR. McDONALD:

You have that permission, Mr. Birnbaum.

Mel McDonald, special counsel for Joe

Arpaio.

11

MR. WALKER:

Good morning, Your Honor.

13

portion of the Maricopa County Government embodied by the Board

14

of Supervisors, the County Manager, and the appointed officials

15

serving under it.

TH
E

appearing on behalf of Maricopa County, or more precisely that

09:02:27

THE COURT:

All right.

17

MR. STEIN:

Good morning, Your Honor.

OF

16

22

S
ND

MR. COMO:

Lee Stein

Good morning.
Good morning, Your Honor.

Greg Como

09:02:36

appearing on behalf of Brian Sands.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

Good morning.

appearing specially for Chief Deputy Sheridan.

19
20

09:02:13

Richard Walker

12

18

09:01:54

An associate named Mitesh

FO

10

THE COURT:

Good morning.

MR. EISENBERG:

Good morning, Your Honor.

David

24

Eisenberg, special appearance on behalf of Lieutenant Joseph

25

Sousa.

09:02:51

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

THE COURT:

And -- oh.

MR. RAPP:

Good morning.

Sorry, Judge.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Good morning.

Christopher

Rapp on behalf of Sergeant Brett Palmer.

THE COURT:

Anyone else?

I don't know whether Sergeant Palmer is here.

All right.

Good morning.

see Lieutenant Sousa.

presume that is pursuant to my authorization for him to waive

MR. BIRNBAUM:
be here Thursday.
THE COURT:

14

MR. BIRNBAUM:

15

THE COURT:

That is correct, Your Honor.

He will

Thursday and Friday.

All right.

We have a few matters to take

care of that we discussed yesterday, and when we discussed them

17

yesterday telephonically I indicated I would put them on the

18

record today and resolve them.

Preliminarily, they relate to the Court of Appeals'

ND

19

opinion that came down last week, and it involves some

21

preliminary questions that I think we arrived at least at some


resolution of yesterday and wish to resolve, and then there was
a discovery dispute raised yesterday that needs to be resolved

FR
24
25

09:03:51

IE

20

23

09:03:29

OF

16

22

09:03:19

All right.

TH
E

13

FO

12

I don't see Chief MacIntyre, and I

his presence had he chose to do so.

11

09:03:00

I do

10

on the record before we begin.


Mr. Walker, as you know, the Court of Appeals directed

09:04:10

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

10

that Maricopa County should be added as a party, added as a

party to replace the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which

they deemed to be not a jural entity.

Maricopa County's right to seek reconsideration for or from the

Ninth Circuit to appeal it to an en banc panel or to the United

States Supreme Court, it is my understanding that you do not

object to Maricopa County at this point being named as a party

in this lawsuit.
Is that correct?

10

MR. WALKER:

11

THE COURT:

Without prejudicing

That is correct, Your Honor.


All right.

13

party.

TH
E

Maricopa County is now a party to this lawsuit and is a named

15

Mr. Walker, when I refer to "Maricopa County," I'm


referring to you.

All right?

And your clients.

There may be some confusion, Mr. Liddy, Ms. Iafrate,


between MCSO and Maricopa County, but I do recognize that, even

18

though the mandate has not yet issued from the Ninth Circuit

19

that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office per se is not a jural

20

entity, according to their current ruling.

21

is some sort of entity, I won't be -- if I talk about MCSO, I

IE

ND

17

24
25

And while it still

09:05:20

won't be intending to refer to it as a party.

FR

23

09:05:00

OF

16

22

09:04:49

And so I'm going to order that

12

14

09:04:33

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. LIDDY:

Your Honor, may I be heard on a related

THE COURT:

Yes.

point?
09:05:38

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

Your Honor, I am the practice group leader

for civil litigation, the civil division for --

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. LIDDY:

11

THE COURT:

Can you slow down a little bit?

MR. LIDDY:

Yes, sir.

I'm the practice group leader for civil litigation in

Maricopa County.

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. LIDDY:

And as such I provide legal advice for

Maricopa County on a wide swath of issues.

The Ninth Circuit

action here has put me in a precarious position, and I am in

11

the process right now of analyzing whether or not there's a

12

substantial risk that either of my clients will be materially

13

affected by my representing the sheriff in this order to show

14

cause proceeding or in the litigation in general.

TH
E

15

And I would beg the Court's indulgence to give me a


little more time to seek counsel from ethics counsel and go

17

through these issues, but I may be at a point in the future

18

applying to this Court to withdraw as counsel of record for

19

Sheriff Arpaio in this proceeding.

ND

Well, I appreciate that clarification.

09:06:27

Let me ask you, do you want to leave counsel table now so that
there isn't any imputation of impropriety against you or any
harm to your clients if, in fact, you determine that you need

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

22

09:06:13

OF

16

21

09:05:56

FO

10

20

09:05:46

24

to withdraw from this action?

25

MR. LIDDY:

I think that's the $64,000 question, Your

09:06:48

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

12

Honor, and I can only speak for myself and not for the County

Attorney, but as the ethical canons go directly to the attorney

and not my superiors, my answer is yes, Your Honor, I would

feel more comfortable if I left the table now.

THE COURT:

All right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to allow you to do

that while you work out your -- your ethical questions.

I'll advise you, Mr. Liddy, that if you want to return to

counsel table during the course of this or other proceedings

you can let me know.

And

But I would appreciate, of course, and I don't want to


rush it because I realize it requires some thought, I would

12

appreciate, to the extent you can come to a resolution of

13

whether or not you need to withdraw, that you do so, but I will

14

ask you until you come to that conclusion that you not

15

participate in this matter.

TH
E

11

Is that all right?

09:07:34

MR. LIDDY:

That's all right.

17

THE COURT:

All right.

18

That does raise another point with the Ninth Circuit's

Understood, Your Honor.

Thank you.

OF

16

opinion.

20

cases there is a functional equivalence between a suit brought

21

against Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity and a suit

IE

09:07:49

against Maricopa County as the jural entity, I could consider


dismissing Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity.

FR

23

It said because there is a functional -- in many

ND

19

22

09:07:21

FO

10

09:07:05

And while

24

I will still consider doing that, I'm not going to do it today

25

because I want to give the parties an opportunity to address it

09:08:10

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

13

and I want to also consider the ramifications as it may relate

to this and other proceedings.

party from raising any consideration about it.

was also sued in his individual capacity, and that does not --

that is not being changed.

GB
OW
.C
OM

But I'm not preventing any

Sheriff Arpaio

Further, the Ninth Circuit, while it sustained, I

think, the great majority of everything that was appealed, it

did indicate that as it pertained to that part of my

supplementary injunctive relief that related to the monitor's

oversight of internal investigations, I had to indicate in that

11

supplemental injunction that the authority extends only to

12

matters that are related to this lawsuit.

13

Again, I will do that.

TH
E

I'll follow the Ninth

Circuit's direction, but I do want to allow the parties to be

15

heard on the scope, if any, of necessary changes to the

16

supplementary injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's order.

09:09:13

OF

14

17

But I also want to make a record now so that all


parties understand that the Ninth Circuit is bound by the facts

19

that existed at the time that the notice of appeal was filed,

20

and so other facts were not considered by the Ninth Circuit in

21

its appeal.

IE

ND

18

This case has been far from static.

09:09:36

There have been a

great number of developments since the notice of appeal in this

FR

23

09:08:57

FO

10

22

09:08:35

24

case was filed.

Among them was the disclosure last May by the

25

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the defendants in this

09:09:55

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

14

matter relating to what was discovered in Deputy Armendariz's

home, a cache of different items -- identifications, drugs,

other things -- that touched off investigations in this matter

and demonstrated the existence of evidence that was requested

by the plaintiffs prior to the underlying lawsuit but were

never provided, or at least the possibility that there existed

such evidence.

video recordings, a great number and variety of items seized

during traffic stops of members of the plaintiff class.

GB
OW
.C
OM

That included audio recordings,

It

also revealed -- further investigation has revealed complaints

11

about MCSO deputies, including Deputy Armendariz, that may or

12

may not have been adequately resolved.

It also revealed poor and perhaps illegal supervision

TH
E

13

of those deputies in their functions.

15

May 14th we had a hearing here, part of which was


under seal.

17

which I advised -- and this is only going to be a rough

18

characterization.

19

disagree, Ms. Iafrate -- I know you weren't there yet -- if you

20

disagree with my characterization, I invite you to seek to

21

correct me.

It was subsequently taken out from under seal in

IE

ND

Chief Deputy, if you disagree, if you

09:11:18

I advised Chief Deputy Sheridan at the time, who

brought forth these allegations and their concerning nature,

FR

23

09:11:01

OF

16

22

09:10:39

FO

10

14

09:10:21

24

that it might be wise for Maricopa County to turn over the

25

investigation of these matters to another law enforcement

09:11:32

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

authority.

wanted to -- for the MCSO to maintain control of the

investigation.

Chief Deputy Sheridan did not want to do that.

He

GB
OW
.C
OM

15

I indicated to him at that time that if he was going

to maintain control of the investigation that my monitor was

going to be supervising and reviewing the MCSO's investigation

and that needed to proceed under his authority, and the MCSO at

that time on the record stated that it had no objection to

doing so.

Long story short of that is because so many things

11

eventually surfaced, and I'm not sure that we yet know them

12

all, from materials that related to the Armendariz

13

investigation as well as the Cisco Perez allegations and other

14

allegations that have since been investigated or partially

15

investigated by the MCSO that relate to the underlying lawsuit,

16

the adequacy of MCSO's self-investigation is very much at issue

17

in this case, and I've always made it clear that it was.

18

MCSO has never taken a contrary position, to my

TH
E

OF

20

self-investigation still remains very much an item of possible

21

relevance in this hearing as it pertains to relief that I might

IE

09:12:47

grant to plaintiffs.

FR

23

09:12:23

knowledge, since May 14th, and the adequacy of MCSO's

ND

19

22

09:12:04

FO

10

09:11:49

And I point out that although there has apparently

24

been much talk about contempt, and contempt is certainly very

25

much a part of this hearing, this is also a hearing related to

09:13:07

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

16

discovery sanctions for material that was never provided by the

defendants to the plaintiffs in this matter.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And so I will be interested in the extent and nature

of that material and how it may have affected the underlying

case or plaintiffs' presentation of the underlying case and

issues related to the underlying case.

the MCSO is doing that investigation, the adequacy of their

investigation is very much at issue and I will so rule on any

evidentiary objection that comes up, and you can preserve, I

And, of course, since

understand, Ms. Iafrate, any objections you have to that to the

11

Ninth Circuit.

12

that the adequacy of MCSO's investigation is pertinent and

13

fundamental to this matter.

TH
E

But we will proceed under the understanding

To that end, when I scheduled this hearing some months


ago I got an estimate from you, Ms. Iafrate, I got a

16

commitment, I think, from you as to when those investigations

17

would end.

18

some independent investigations, which he did, and then stopped

19

in deference to the MCSO's self-investigation.

20

number of those.

21

that are completed but there are approximately 31 more that my

There are a

I think you've identified in court 20 of them

09:14:29

IE

ND

You will recall that I empowered my monitor to do

monitor has never been informed were completed, and there are
two very important ones that relate to the MCSO's

FR

23

09:14:13

OF

15

22

09:13:50

FO

10

14

09:13:27

24

self-investigation of some of its command staff, including the

25

individual persons here that have been noticed for contempt,

09:14:49

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

17

and those investigations, while -- well, let me just say this:

While I believe Detective Vogel, who is an outside source that

MCSO contracted with to conduct those investigations, has

completed his investigation, the MCSO directed Detective Vogel

that his ability to find policy violations and impose -- and

recommend and impose discipline was not within his purview.

GB
OW
.C
OM

So while his reports have been completed and I have

been provided with them, it is my understanding that there has

been no completion of that investigation.

That's correct, isn't it, Ms. Iafrate?

11

MS. IAFRATE:

FO

10

That is correct, Your Honor.

13

with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to finish and to

14

impose discipline.

TH
E

the four investigations that were assigned to Mr. Vogel are now

THE COURT:

All right.

16

What about the other approximately 31 open


investigations that have not been completed on this matter that

18

relate to the initial Armendariz and/or Cisco Perez matters and

19

that sprang from that or from the monitor's initial

20

investigations?

24
25

ND

09:16:10

The Internal Affairs group continues to

IE

MS. IAFRATE:

work with monitor Kiyler to push those through as quickly as


possible, Your Honor.

FR

23

17

22

09:15:55

OF

15

09:15:38

The two of

12

21

09:15:13

THE COURT:

Well, I appreciate that, but I will tell

you that I've been consulting with the monitor and with monitor

09:16:23

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

18

Kiyler and they have not been informed as to the status of

those investigations despite repeated requests.

that during the pendency of this hearing the monitor team is in

town.

to prepare for us -- well, let me get to the bottom line.

I scheduled some time ago with you, based on the

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'll also say

They're doing their normal audit.

Yesterday, in trying

possibility that I hoped would not be necessary, the

continuation of this contempt hearing on June 16, 17, 18, 19.

Because the monitor has had no chance to evaluate your internal


investigations and because we know not where they stand, a

11

large number of them, and because I need to know what his view

12

is of those investigations, and I think, in fairness, you have

13

an opportunity to respond to that adequacy, we're going to hold

14

the hearings on June 16, 17, 18, 19 as it relates to the

15

adequacy of the investigations and as it relates to the

16

discovery that you haven't yet provided even though there were

17

months -- you had months-long notice, and any -- and we're

18

going to proceed today, but anybody -- I'm going to make it

19

clear.

20

and Ms. Wang has informed me that she can go forward and has

21

plenty to fill these four days, is subject to recall, because

TH
E

OF

ND

Anybody who's called and testifies in these hearings,


09:17:47

these matters have not yet been provided, subject to recall in


that June hearing, and if we still don't have documents in that

FR

23

09:17:29

IE

22

09:17:07

FO

10

09:16:47

24

June hearing, or if we still don't have matters that I think

25

are relevant, then I'm going to take appropriate action at that

09:18:06

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

19

time.
What that comes back to is, I've asked the monitors to

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
3

be prompt about evaluating the investigation when it is

complete, not just the 542 and 543 investigations, but the 31

other investigations, both as to their adequacy as to things

that were and were not investigated and other matters.

They tried yesterday to request documents to help them

prepare for the adequacy of that investigation.

informed by MCSO, even though there was an attorney there when

They were

they made the request who could have reviewed the documents,

11

and I think one of the things they were asking for was a menu

12

of internal investigations that have been done, they were

13

informed by MCSO that no one, including the attorney, could

14

authorize the release of those documents until you approved.

TH
E

I understand that you're very busy personally, but

16

I -- as I think we've discussed very early on when you came

17

into this matter, while I want the attorneys to be able to

18

review the documents so that there aren't inadvertent

19

disclosures, I don't want to delay my monitor or anybody else,

20

any other party in this investigation.

ND

09:19:18

IE

So I would request you to consider if there are not

people in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, even if not


Mr. Liddy or others, that can be authorized to review those

FR

23

09:18:59

OF

15

22

09:18:43

FO

10

21

09:18:22

24

documents and to provide them to the monitors or list an

25

objection while they are here in their audit performance so

09:19:34

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

that we can proceed if we have to and be ready to go in the

June matter, even if we have -- I just don't want to let this

go on any further.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Is there any problem with that?

MS. IAFRATE:

No, Your Honor.

I believed that what --

and I received this information secondhand.

what they wanted to do was Bates stamp the documents before

they were delivered, because there have been some inadvertent

disclosures.

THE COURT:

I believed that

All that makes sense, and again, I'm not

trying to deprive an attorney from the opportunity to review

12

that to protect those things, but I don't -- you're very busy

13

and you're going to be here for the next four days.

14

want to delay the monitor's document production, but without

15

depriving you of the opportunity to do appropriate review, so

16

it sounds like we can proceed on that basis.

OF

TH
E

11

17

MS. IAFRATE:

18

THE COURT:

09:20:25

Yes.

Now, the other reason that we are going to

20

it this week, but we're going to have it again in June -- is

21

because yesterday Ms. Wang raised to me, and if you want me to

09:20:39

IE

ND

potentially have to continue this hearing -- again, we'll have

go through the whole chronology that we went through yesterday,


I will, but she raised with me the issue that when I -- I

FR

23

09:20:08

I don't

19

22

09:19:52

FO

10

That was my request.

20

24

entered an order in February for the MCSO to provide certain

25

documents.

Mr. Young, earlier this month, indicated that some

09:21:00

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

of those documents had not yet been provided, and you and he

had a telephonic conference with me when I ordered the

production, the clear and methodical production of certain

documents that had not yet been provided, and I ordered a

process for you to go through.

GB
OW
.C
OM

At that time, approximately, as I understand it, you

made a request to the, I don't know, the data storage section

of the MCSO to give you a database search, and what you got

back was not responsive to the request that you had made.

11

Is that -- I see you shaking your head.

FO

10
it wrong?

12

MS. IAFRATE:

You are, Your Honor.

Am I stating

14

Sheriff's Office.

Maricopa County.

19

MS. IAFRATE:

18

22

24
25

Did you make the request to MCSO?

09:21:47

Well, I made the request to MCSO and

ND

Okay.

MS. IAFRATE:

So they're two separate requests that

09:21:57

were made.

THE COURT:

Okay.

And that was right after that

initial telephonic conference that you and I had with Mr. Young

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

09:21:36

Did I say Maricopa County?

17

20

Okay.

OF

16

TH
E

gets confusing between Maricopa County and Maricopa County

THE COURT:

09:21:17

This is where it

13

15

21

earlier this month?


MS. IAFRATE:

Yes.

09:22:07

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

THE COURT:

Okay.

22

And as we had learned earlier in

this matter, MCSO -- Maricopa County apparently has a separate

database of documents that contains all of MCSO's electronic

documents.

5
6

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Certain -- certain documents, yes, Your

Honor.

THE COURT:

Anyway, your response, either from Maricopa County or

Okay.

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was not responsive to what


you had requested.

And then you took it upon yourself to do an

11

individual computer review with the named contemnors and

12

certain other relevant parties, and you did that on April 10th,

13

and you made that avowal to the plaintiffs, and I think, as I

14

recall, didn't have a whole lot of other documents to turn

15

over.

TH
E

Didn't have any.

09:22:53

Then certain other discovery disputes were resolved

OF

16

and certain depositions were reopened, and when they were

18

reopened there was the mention of other documents that were

19

clearly related that had not yet been produced.

20

and produced one of those documents that was authored by

21

Lieutenant Sousa, and one of the persons whose deposition was

You went back

IE

ND

17

09:23:09

reopened was Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

FR

23

09:22:32

FO

10

22

09:22:20

So Lieutenant Jakowinicz's deposition had to be opened

24

for a -- reopened for a second time because he had been a

25

recipient of the Sousa document.

09:23:29

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

23

And then after the second reopening of detective -Lieutenant Jakowinicz's documents, he provided you with 15 more

documents.

privilege, the plaintiffs assert some sort of inadequacy of

privilege as to some but not all of those documents.

did produce one document.

You reviewed those.

GB
OW
.C
OM

As to seven, you've asserted a

And you

Plaintiffs have informed me that that one document

indicates that there are yet other documents in the same e-mail

string that have never been provided and about which they are
curious, and at this point, in light of the pendency of this

11

hearing, they've requested that the monitor oversee document

12

production in this case.

You entered the objection, reasonable, I think, that

TH
E

13
14

you don't want the document -- you don't want the monitor

15

reviewing attorney-client-privileged documents.

09:24:18

So what I indicated I was inclined to do was require

OF

16
17

the monitor to come up with a systematic measure -- oh, I'm

18

sorry.

19

conference yesterday that while you did make a follow-up

20

request to him after the problem with the Jakowinicz documents

21

came clear, he only received that for the first time on Sunday,

09:24:35

IE

ND

Before I get to that, Mr. Walker indicated in the

and Maricopa County is glad to do a database search but they


can't give you everything by this week.

FR

23

09:24:03

FO

10

22

09:23:49

24

You're shaking your head again.

25

MS. IAFRATE:

Well, Your Honor, I made the request to

09:24:49

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

Maricopa County before Mr. Walker was even a thought in this

case.

3
4

THE COURT:

I got that.

aware of it until Sunday.

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

Right.

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Mr. Walker didn't become

And he's glad to make sure that

that happens but he can't guarantee that it will happen by the

end of this week.

Is that correct, Mr. Walker?


MR. WALKER:

Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.

11

THE COURT:

12

So my inclination is to have the monitor review any

All right.

plan for a database search, to have the monitor take account of

14

the documents that that database search reveals but without

15

reviewing those documents allow you to review them so that you

16

can make assertions as to attorney-client privilege that may

17

apply to any of those documents, and then he can spot check the

18

other documents to make sure -- the other documents, for

19

example, the ones that you deem nonresponsive, he can just spot

20

check them if he wants to to make sure they're nonresponsive.

21

The other documents will be turned over to plaintiff and then

25

ND

IE

09:25:48

we will resolve any privilege disputes as it pertains to the


privilege log.

FR
24

09:25:29

OF

TH
E

13

23

09:25:11

FO

10

22

09:25:03

That is what I indicated my inclination was.

have any objection to proceeding in that fashion?

Do you
09:26:04

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

MS. IAFRATE:

No, Your Honor.

Will the magistrate be

the one determining the disputes regarding privilege, or will

it be you?
THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

25

Well, it will be me unless it requires

somebody to look at the content of the document, and if it

does, I think even though it's not required for reasons of

prudence, as we've said before, we've got Judge Boyle here, and

I really didn't have to use Judge Boyle in the first place but

I think he graciously volunteered, and I can understand why the


defendants wouldn't want me to look at documents that may be

11

subject to the attorney-client privilege.

12

has some objection, my inclination would be to refer all such

13

documents back to Magistrate Judge Boyle.

14

MS. WANG:

TH
E

FO

10

Your Honor, we would not have any objection


We would like to have input

16

as the monitor team comes up with a plan for the review of the

17

documents.

We have some ideas for how that might be expedited.


Yeah.

THE COURT:

Actually, I did express it that way, but I don't mean

ND

19

to suggest that you shouldn't try to resolve this yourself.

21

But when you do resolve it I'm going to ask you, or get as

09:27:10

IE

20

close to resolution as can, I'm going to ask you to submit it


to the monitor, make sure that he can approve that method for

FR

23

09:26:52

OF

to that referral to Judge Boyle.

22

09:26:37

So unless Ms. Wang

15

18

09:26:21

24

document production and database searching, both the Maricopa

25

County database and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

09:27:31

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

database.

MS. WANG:

To be clear, Your Honor, I think we've come

GB
OW
.C
OM

26

to the end of the road in terms of attempting to work this out

with the defendants.

plan for review of the documents.

THE COURT:

We do request that the monitor impose a

All right.

Well, I will allow you, as I

will allow Chief Sands and the other defendants, to have access

to the monitor to make whatever recommendations you want.


MS. WANG:

Thank you, Your Honor.

10

THE COURT:

11

Yes?

12

MR. WALKER:

All right.

Your Honor, I just wanted to advise the

Court after our conference call yesterday I asked paralegals at

14

my office to check to see what we have in electronic form that

15

would be readily available for search.

16

recall, PST files, e-mail files, for all the individuals for

17

whom a request has been made by the plaintiffs but only for

18

part of the period that they requested.

And we do have, as I

Having gone through this before in another action, I

ND

19

know that if we want to have access to e-mails for a portion of

21

the period for which we do not already have PST files, we will
have to restore PST files from the disaster recovery tapes, and
that is both an expensive and time-consuming process.

FR
24
25

09:28:39

IE

20

23

09:28:12

OF

TH
E

13

22

09:27:58

FO

09:27:42

THE COURT:

Well, I appreciate that.

As you say, we

have been through this before in this very action, and while I

09:29:03

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

27

don't intend to impose costs that plaintiffs agree are not

necessary and that I don't think are necessary, even if

plaintiffs don't agree, I may well require such costs to be

incurred to the extent that we can't cull those documents from

the MCSO database.

GB
OW
.C
OM

But again, I will leave the details of that for the

moment up to the monitor, and I would direct both parties --

all parties to have access to the monitor if you want sooner

rather than later, because we're not going to wait until June
before we start raising issues about discovery disputes.

11

I'm just going to remind everybody, if you've got a


cell phone in here, you should turn it off, and if the marshals

13

see you using your cell phone you'll be escorted out of the

14

building.

15

ability to use a cell phone but that's simply because, as I've

16

indicated, their whole team is here doing one of their periodic

17

audit reviews and they have to have some contact with them.

TH
E

12

I have granted to the monitors who are here the

OF

All right.

19

discovery dispute yesterday?

22

ND

MS. WANG:

I believe so.

09:30:20

I believe so, Your Honor.

We do have some other logistical issues that we wanted

to raise with the Court.

FR

23

Have we resolved everything related to the

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

21

09:30:03

18

20

09:29:40

FO

10

09:29:20

24

THE COURT:

25

MS. WANG:

All right.
Okay.

Let's get them taken care of.


09:30:31

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

First, Your Honor, is that plaintiffs request that


witnesses be excluded during the testimony of others.

GB
OW
.C
OM

28

Second, Your Honor, we do have a question about the

time keeping.

We have only four days and a number of witnesses

with both parties and Chief Sands engaging in questioning.

we just wanted to ask logistically how to handle the issue of

keeping track of time so that we conclude everything by Friday.

THE COURT:

assignment of time?

Well, do you want me to give you an

Because I didn't -- I did not really do

that.

11

MS. WANG:

13

THE COURT:

All right.

TH
E

assignment of time.

You can -- I believe that we

discussed yesterday the idea that, in order to be efficient, if

15

a witness is going to be called in your case and Ms. Iafrate

16

intends to call her in her case or Chief Sands intends to call

17

that witness in his case, I'm just going to allow, if you all

18

agree, and I think it makes great sense, to do that witness

19

once.

ND

do direct.

09:31:30

Then I'll allow the other parties to do cross.

Then I'll allow you to do -- and in their cross I will allow


them a great deal of liberality to raise new matters.

FR

23

I'll allow you, for example, if it's your witness, to

IE

22

09:31:15

OF

14

21

09:31:02

No, I don't think we would like an

12

20

09:30:43

FO

10

So

Then

24

your redirect I'll also allow you a great deal of liberality to

25

cross as to the matters that they raised for the first time.

09:31:46

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

And then on their redirect I will hold them to issues really

that were -- that are implicated by your redirect.

MS. WANG:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Understood, Your Honor.

Do you have any other suggestions for

being efficient as we move through these witnesses and

evidence?

29

MS. WANG:

No, Your Honor.

I think we can play it by

ear.

consult and try to keep us on track as we go along.

If it looks like we're running behind schedule we'll

THE COURT:

I really don't think we need to spend a

FO

10

whole lot of time on a lot of matters.

12

matters have been stipulated to, and if they haven't been I

13

would suggest that you take a minute at lunch or after the end

14

of the hearing today to see if you can arrive at stipulations

15

that will clear out a bunch of unnecessary testimony, because I

16

don't need it.

That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen to


the facts and circumstances that surround the contempt, and I

19

think the contempt has been admitted to by some but not all of

20

the parties.

ND

18

09:32:47

IE

It doesn't mean either that I'm not interested in the

discovery aspect of this case, even to the extent it goes


beyond contempt, as to what you weren't provided and what

FR

23

09:32:30

OF

17

22

09:32:13

I believe that some

TH
E

11

21

09:32:00

24

difference that would have made to your case in chief is going

25

to be a matter of some interest to me in terms of coming up

09:33:01

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

with appropriate remedies in this case.

But it does seem to me that even though, you know, the

GB
OW
.C
OM

30

public might be interested, and I certainly don't want to

deprive the public of an opportunity to be informed,

stipulations can serve that purpose if there is no reason other

than the facts to be set forth.

So I encourage you to explore that with the parties to


see if we can arrive at stipulations.

9
10

MS. WANG:

We have made some efforts so far, Your

Honor, which have not been successful.

11

THE COURT:

Well, if they haven't been successful then

I'll point out that fortunately, in addition to the four days

13

this week, we've now got four days that have opened up in June.

TH
E

12

14

And as I said yesterday, I'm not going to go through


and spend all the time that I spent last time and find out that

16

evidence was not provided.

17

back five, six, seven or eight times, we will get all the

18

evidence and we will hear the testimony and we're going to

19

finish with this case.

22

24
25

That is my intent.

ND

And so if we have to call witnesses

It seems to me that we are better off -- again, I

09:34:05

don't want to be inefficient, but it seems to me we're better


off finishing this case now than dragging it off -- dragging it
out forever and finding new evidence and other matters that are

FR

23

09:33:45

IE

21

OF

15

20

09:33:33

FO

09:33:18

going to require the reopening again of these things.


Ms. Iafrate, did you want to be heard on that?

09:34:21

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

31

MS. IAFRATE:

Yes, Your Honor.

I would request that you do submit an allocation of

GB
OW
.C
OM

time for each party.

that by the time we get to Friday we will be out of time.

at least some guidance of how much time each party would have,

it concerns me that we won't get to Sheriff Arpaio's witnesses.

THE COURT:

We do have witnesses also.

My fear is

With

Well, I'll tell you what, Ms. Iafrate.

What we will do, then -- because I'll -- you see if you have

other dates between now and June that you can hold open.

If

you're concerned, we'll give you the time you need and I'll

11

find another date even between now and June when we can have

12

more testimony.

But you will have the opportunity to present

13

your witnesses.

I will just -- even if it isn't immediately in

14

this section, there's going to be supplemental hearings.

15

You'll have the time to present your witnesses and I will hear

16

them, but I do want to do that efficiently.

TH
E

09:35:12

OF

17

I'm not in any position right at the moment to give


time allocations but I would be glad to discuss that with the

19

parties.

20

especially it is difficult when I'm allowing what I think is an

21

efficient procedure -- well, I guess I could do that.

18

IE

ND

If you want to discuss it we can talk about it.

But
09:35:28

I'll

just charge you the time that you're up and asking questions.

FR

23

09:34:57

FO

10

22

09:34:38

So I will keep track of it beginning right now.

24

will give you your running totals, and then if I decide I'm

25

going to assert a total, your running total will go against

09:35:47

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

your total time.

All right?

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

32

Thank you, Your Honor.

Ms. Como, anything on that?


Your Honor, the only --

What we're going to need to do, we're

going to need to have you speak into a microphone always,

Mr. Como.

break, realign yourself so that you're in front of a

So maybe we need to, after you come back after the

microphone, but as it is now, would you please come over to the

11

podium?

12

MR. COMO:

13

Your Honor, I understand about having Mr. Sands, for

TH
E

Sure.

14

example, testify on direct following the cross by the

15

plaintiffs, and I have no problem with that for efficiency

16

purposes.

17

want to reserve our right to recall him in the event that other

18

evidence comes out from other witnesses after he testifies.

OF

S
ND

THE COURT:

All right.

You can make that appropriate

I'm not going to require anyone who I

21

have individually noticed as being a party to contempt to leave

09:36:42

IE

motion at that time.

the courtroom, but every other person who has been called as a
witness will need to leave the courtroom because we are

FR

23

09:36:27

However, I simply want to be clear that we would

20

22

09:36:11

FO

10

19

09:35:54

24

invoking the rule of exclusion and you'll have to wait outside

25

subject to call.

09:37:01

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

So if you have been notified that you are a witness in


this matter and you have not been individually noticed as

somebody who is subject to contempt, you must leave the

courtroom at this time and wait in the waiting area.

waiting rooms right behind the courtroom.

GB
OW
.C
OM

(Witnesses are excused from the courtroom.)

MR. WALKER:

There are

Your Honor, may I be heard on the

County's participation in this matter?

THE COURT:

10

MR. WALKER:

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. WALKER:

You may.

Would you like me to come to the podium?


Sure.

14

Board of Supervisors is not at all interested in causing

15

unnecessary disruption or unnecessarily prolonging this matter.

16

To the contrary, they'd very much like to see it brought to a

17

just and expeditious conclusion without the imposition of undue

18

financial burdens on the Maricopa County taxpayers.

09:38:04

OF

TH
E

in the conference call we had yesterday, the Maricopa County

That said, as we discussed yesterday, I was retained

ND

19

to become involved in this case last Friday, and neither I, nor

21

anyone from my firm, participated in any of the discovery that

IE

20

09:38:28

was run up to this proceeding.

FR

23

09:37:38

First of all, Your Honor, as I indicated

13

22

09:37:19

FO

33

And for that reason, and also because I think that the

24

outcome of the issues that we are probably going to raise with

25

the Court of Appeals with regard to ordering the County to

09:38:54

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

34

participate as a party, could actually affect the course of

these proceedings in some ways that at this point are difficult

to fathom.

GB
OW
.C
OM

We'd respectfully request a brief delay in the

proceedings, one, to permit us to get those issues before the

Court of Appeals; and two, to give me and my firm a reasonable

opportunity to prepare.

8
9

You've already indicated both in the telephone

conference yesterday and here today what your inclination is in


that regard and I respect that, but for the record, I'd still

11

request the delay.

12

THE COURT:

All right.

I do think -- I can't fathom,

as I thought through it, I mean, Ms. Iafrate is representing

14

the defendants in this action.

15

jural entity that was briefed before the Court of Appeals, and

16

they indicated that they're only moving in Maricopa County

17

because Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a jural entity.

TH
E

13

The question really related to

OF

09:39:54

Unless you can tell me why you believe that

18

Ms. Iafrate is incapable of representing any liability

20

interests that may arise from the defendants that she is

21

representing, we're going to proceed.

IE

ND

19

MR. WALKER:

09:40:15

Well, Your Honor, I have nothing but the

greatest respect for Ms. Iafrate and in her capabilities, but

FR

23

09:39:31

FO

10

22

09:39:13

24

the interests of the sheriff and the Maricopa County Sheriff's

25

Office and the portion of the county government that I

09:40:39

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

represent are not necessarily entirely coincident.

My understanding --

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

I do realize that, Mr. Walker, and I think

I've been very careful to try and keep Maricopa County

government well aware of what's happening here.

representatives here at virtually every proceeding or I've

invited them to be here.

8
9

35

They have had

Further, as I told you on the phone yesterday,


Maricopa County was a party to this action.

After Judge

Murguia made her determination that Maricopa County Sheriff's

11

Office was a jural entity, Maricopa County asked to be

12

dismissed from this action.

13

charge of this case and I agreed, based on the stipulation of

14

the parties, to dismiss Maricopa County from this action only

15

on the stipulation that if we ever needed them, they would be

16

reintroduced into this action and the action could proceed.

17

As I indicated yesterday on the phone, and you may

09:41:29

OF

TH
E

I agreed -- and by then I was in

have told Ms. Gilbride, but, Ms. Gilbride, if we didn't tell

19

you I'm telling you now what I stated on the phone yesterday,

20

that at a previous proceeding when Ms. Gilbride -- I questioned

21

Ms. Gilbride about the nature of her appeal about Maricopa

09:41:48

IE

ND

18

County Sheriff's Office not being a jural entity and if there


was any reason why, as far as she was concerned, we needed to

FR

23

09:41:09

FO

10

22

09:40:52

24

insert Maricopa County as a party at that point, and I believe

25

other representatives of the County were here, and my

09:42:09

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

36

recollection is they are on the record saying we could proceed

and they didn't need to be a party because they were just

trying to make a resolution of the issue once and for all at

the Ninth Circuit as well as at the Court of Appeals whether or

not Maricopa County, or Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was

an entity capable of being sued.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Now, have I mischaracterized that, Ms. Gilbride?

MS. GILBRIDE:

THE COURT:

No, that's correct, Your Honor.

All right.

So as I indicated to you yesterday, I believe we had

FO

10

County folks here said we could proceed.

There has been a

12

tremendous amount of expense and effort.

I can't really see

13

that the County's interests aren't being fully and completely

14

represented by Ms. Iafrate in a representation of the

15

defendants here.

16

of Appeals opinion has said.

TH
E

11

I think that is the effect of what the Court

09:42:54

I do recognize your right and your concern about


representing the separate interests of your client, but I don't

19

think that any of the facts here are going to change, and you

20

can certainly represent them as vigorously as you can, and as

21

is apparent at this point, we are going to have further

09:43:12

IE

ND

18

proceedings in this matter and I will consider any interests


that you have to be heard on points related to the County that

FR

23

09:42:38

OF

17

22

09:42:25

24

you couldn't have previously raised before these hearings come

25

to a close.

09:43:31

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

MR. WALKER:

37

I understand, Your Honor, and I respect

your position.

I'd just like to state for the record that the

County has been brought back in as a party.

It was not sought by the County or any of the parties.

I've been in the case just long enough to be able to begin to

recognize what questions need to be asked, not to be in a

position, really, to provide definitive answers.

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Well --

It was unexpected.
And

Quite frankly, I think the Ninth Circuit

has thrown us all a bit of a curve ball here, and I just think

11

that it -- it would make sense in terms of efficiency and

12

orderliness for us to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to

13

reconsider its position before we move forward with anything

14

substantive.

TH
E

15

And in that regard, I'd say, although it's not


entirely clear what the Court intended, at this point I think I

17

have to operate on the assumption, and I believe the Court has

18

to operate on the assumption, that the Ninth Circuit intended

19

for Maricopa County to become a party for all purposes and with

20

all the rights of a full-fledged party.

ND

09:44:47

IE

And if we had been a party while this discovery was

going on and it somehow had been scheduled behind our backs and
conducted without our knowing about it and participating in it,

FR

23

09:44:28

OF

16

22

09:44:09

FO

10

21

09:43:53

24

I'm sure Your Honor would be receptive to the notion that that

25

wasn't fair and it put my client at an unfair disadvantage.

09:45:10

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

This wasn't quite how I envisioned today going.

38

Do you wish to be heard on this, Mr. Como?

Ms. Iafrate?

GB
OW
.C
OM

No, Your Honor.

Yes, Your Honor.

Someone from my team has left the table, which is news to me

today.

that there could be some conflict that somehow affects me.

prepared to defend the clients that I'm here to defend.

I hear the concerns of Maricopa County.

I'm concerned
I'm

However, based on what I hear from Mr. Liddy and Mr. Walker, I

11

am concerned regarding these issues that the Ninth Circuit has

12

thrust upon us.


THE COURT:

And so?

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

THE COURT:

TH
E

13

17

And so I've made my record.

You haven't made any motion at all.

What

MS. IAFRATE:

Well, I would support Mr. Walker's

request that we have ethics counsel figure out whether we are

19

in synced with Maricopa County or there is some potential for

20

conflict so that the attorneys that are here representing the

21

individual clients are not walking into an ethical quagmire

ND

IE

09:46:26

without assistance from ethics counsel.

FR

23

18

22

09:46:05

What is your position with respect to it?

OF

is your motion?

09:45:51

FO

10

16

09:45:27

THE COURT:

Have you -- you've not considered your

24

ethical responsibilities prior to today in light of the Ninth

25

Circuit's decision?

09:46:48

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

And have you sought ethics counsel?


No, I have not, Your Honor.

Um-hum.

I have been discussing it with Maricopa

County.

7
8

Yes, I did, Your Honor.

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

Because I represent Maricopa County in

issues and I represent Sheriff Arpaio in issues, and what I'm

11

hearing today is that potentially their issues in this

12

courtroom may not align.

Do you have any reason to believe that

TH
E

THE COURT:

14

their issues don't align -- that the factual issues don't

15

align?

MS. IAFRATE:

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

16

09:47:22

Yes.

And what is that basis?

Based on Mr. Liddy asking to be removed

from the table and conversations that I've had with Maricopa

20

County, including Bill Montgomery and Mr. Fall.

MS. WANG:

09:47:34

Ms. Wang?
Your Honor, plaintiffs oppose the County's

motion to stay these proceedings.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

22

ND

19

21

09:47:04

FO

10

13

09:46:54

On what basis do you believe that you may

be ethically constrained?

39

Essentially, under the Ninth

24

Circuit's opinion, the County has now stepped into the shoes of

25

MCSO as a party.

MCSO has been represented throughout these

09:48:01

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

proceedings and the County is simply stepping in.

has chosen to retain new counsel.

The County

GB
OW
.C
OM

40

But for all purposes of this contempt hearing where

the fact issues have to do with what the individual contemnors

did and with what the agency did, we don't believe that there

are any issues that require a stay.

In effect, the entity that's responsible has changed

from MCSO to the County, but the issues are the same, and

plaintiffs are ready to proceed and believe that a stay would

prejudice our interests in seeing the civil contempt proceeding

11

go forward, particularly, Your Honor, since we know that we are

12

going to be continuing witness examinations in June.

13

will be plenty of time, to the extent Mr. Walker wants to get

14

up to speed and raise issues, particularly having to do with

15

remedies, at a later point before the Court makes any decision.

TH
E

FO

10

THE COURT:

All right.

OF

16

09:49:01

I am going to say that I have

18

Circuit's opinion, which I believe is based essentially on the

19

opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and I think it makes

20

clear that all it is talking about is the nominally appropriate

21

party, and that all it is dealing with here is putting in place

09:49:19

IE

ND

read, I think, carefully, a couple of times, the Ninth

the nominally appropriate party, that it makes no factual


difference.

FR

23

09:48:41

There

17

22

09:48:19

24

Ms. Iafrate, if you could tell me some basis on which

25

I thought that you were really compromising yourself ethically

09:49:37

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

41

from what you have always been doing, I would not compel you to

proceed with this hearing.

of matters that I have just reviewed, we are going to have to

have multiple supplement -- multiple, several different

schedulings of this hearing.

GB
OW
.C
OM

But it does seem to me that because

Mr. Walker, I'm going to, as I said, allow you to do

any makeup you need to do, but it seems to me, based on the

positions taken in this court when I heard from Maricopa County

as opposed to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, they may be

trying to make some argument that Maricopa County as an entity

11

is not financially liable for the contempt of Sheriff Arpaio

12

and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.


But that seems to me to be a legal argument, not a

TH
E

13

factual argument.

It doesn't seem to me that it -- because you

15

are separately represented here now, to the extent you want to

16

establish such a thing, I'll allow you to take depositions or

17

do whatever you feel like you need to do prior to the end of

18

this hearing, which will be continued for several months.

09:50:34

OF

14

Ms. Iafrate, I'm sympathetic to you.

If you can come

ND

19

up with some sort of reason why you really think, in light of

21

the Ninth Circuit's opinion, that you really have some sort of

IE

20

conflict, then I'll -- then I'll vacate the hearing.

09:50:51

But this

has gone on for too long and I do believe it would be quite

FR

23

09:50:16

FO

10

22

09:49:58

24

prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff -- plaintiff

25

class in light of the extensive time I have given and in light

09:51:08

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

42

of, in fairness, my reading of the Ninth Circuit's opinion,

which is that this only has to do with naming the correct party

and doesn't have to do with a difference of rights as it

relates to that party at all.

hearing.

GB
OW
.C
OM

We're going to proceed with this

So I appreciate your position, Mr. Walker.

As I've

indicated, the hearing is only beginning today and I'll let you

make up whatever you have to make up to make sure that the

County's interests are represented.


MR. WALKER:

Thank you, Your Honor.

11

In light of your ruling, may I have a continuing


objection so that -THE COURT:

14

MR. WALKER:

15

THE COURT:

You may have a continuing objection.

TH
E

13

Thank you.

Ms. Iafrate, you may also have a

continuing objection.

17

MS. IAFRATE:

18

THE COURT:

could.

22

24
25

Anything else that we need to

Your Honor, just one question, if I

09:52:01

I'm trying to define what role the special limited

counsel have in this case, whether we participate, whether we


cross-examine, or whether our issues don't come until the end

FR

23

Thank you, Your Honor.

Okay.

MR. McDONALD:

21

09:51:50

ND

raise?

IE

20

OF

16

19

09:51:41

FO

10

12

09:51:27

of the case when the other issues come up.


THE COURT:

Well, let me just say this, Mr. McDonald.

09:52:19

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

43

I'm not going to allow you generally to participate, but it

does seem to me that you do have a role that may go during the

course of this hearing.

role at the end.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Again, you will have an appropriate

But it also seems to me that if, for example, and I'm

not trying to forecast anything, if you have Fifth Amendment

concerns, I'm going to allow you to be heard on those in this

hearing.

in this hearing as it may relate to any later hearing for

To the extent that you are representing your client

criminal contempt or other criminal liability, I'm certainly

11

going to allow you to represent his interests in that limited

12

respect.

Does that help clarify your question?

14

MR. McDONALD:

TH
E

13

I'm sorry.

It would not -- for

example, hypothetically, if the sheriff were on the witness

16

stand and I felt there were areas that I wanted to bring out,

17

this would not be the time to do that?

OF

15

That's correct.

Unless and until it

20

example a Fifth Amendment assertion or anything else that --

21

and I'm not saying that the sheriff will make that, but it

09:53:25

IE

ND

relates to your concern about, for example, I offer as an

seems to me in light of the fact that I have raised the


possibility that the appropriate remedy might be criminal, he

FR

23

09:53:07

THE COURT:

19

22

09:52:54

FO

10

18

09:52:34

24

certainly -- you certainly have an interest in representing him

25

in that respect and I will allow you to be heard --

09:53:40

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

MR. McDONALD:

THE COURT:

And the same goes, Mr. Birnbaum, all the rest of you

44

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

-- as it relates to those matters.

who entered special appearances.

Mr. Stein, the same goes to

you.

this hearing, but to the extent that it relates to any

invocation of Fifth Amendment or other rights that you believe

your client -- that relate to criminal proceedings or

criminal -- or criminal matters, or -- and I don't mean to be

I'm not going to generally allow you to participate in

pejorative in that -- matters in which you believe their rights

11

need to be protected as against any sort of a future criminal

12

contempt hearing, I will allow you to be heard.


Anything else that needs to be clarified?

14

MR. COMO:

TH
E

13

Your Honor, I would like to have some

guidance from the Court as to the scope of the next four days

16

in terms of whether we're really just looking at whether these

17

individuals should be held in contempt or whether we're also

18

looking at potential civil remedies.

MR. COMO:

FR

23
24
25

We're definitely looking at potential

civil remedies.

IE

22

THE COURT:

ND

19

21

09:54:38

OF

15

20

09:54:17

FO

10

09:53:57

09:54:55

Within these four days.

THE COURT:

Yes.

MR. COMO:

Okay.

THE COURT:

That's all.

Within the next four days and within

anything else that we schedule in the interim or thereafter.

09:55:02

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

Ms. Wang, were you going to make some sort of an

opening statement?

MS. WANG:

Okay.
All right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

No, Your Honor.

My intent, as I noted

yesterday, was that plaintiffs wanted to clarify the scope of

evidence that we intend to put on.

already done that and made clear what the scope of today's

hearing is and the next three days.

I think Your Honor has

We would say that the overarching issue on which

plaintiffs intend to put on evidence is how to bring Sheriff

12

Arpaio and this agency into compliance with the Court's orders

13

and the proper remedies for doing so, and I'll leave it at

14

that.

TH
E

11

THE COURT:

All right.

16

Ms. Iafrate?

17

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

15

Your Honor, Sheriff Arpaio and the named

19

to be within the Court's order.

20

the newest ones but there are some newer at my table.

21

of a lack of communication, organization, and misinformation

25

I'm one of
09:55:59

IE

Because

that was provided to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, I


continue to acknowledge that exists.

FR
24

We're here today.

ND

contemnors -- I'm not going to list them all -- also would like

23

09:55:25

09:55:40

18

22

09:55:13

FO

10

45

When we work through issues with the monitors they

continue to have some frustration regarding that.

It's a

09:56:18

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg

46

culture that we are attempting to fix with the monitor's

assistance so that we can remedy these deficiencies that were

not on purpose.

negligent areas that need to be fixed.

Chief Deputy Sheridan as well as the others at Maricopa County

Sheriff's Office are committed to fix these deficiencies and

move forward.

GB
OW
.C
OM

They were not willful.

THE COURT:

Mr. Como?

10

MR. COMO:

Thank you.

They were -- they were

And Sheriff Arpaio and

Chief Sands, I'd just like to say that we're ready to proceed,

12

that he's volunteered -- that he's cooperated completely, and

13

that we will put on evidence to show that he took reasonable

14

steps to comply with your December 23, 2011, order.

TH
E

11

THE COURT:

16

Ms. Wang, first witness.

17

MS. WANG:

Your Honor, plaintiffs call David Trombi.

18

THE CLERK:

State your whole name for the record and

22

24
25

09:57:15

THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:

FR

23

ND

21

Thank you.

spell your last name.

IE

20

All right.

OF

15

19

09:56:55

FO

Your Honor, on behalf of former

09:56:43

David Trombi.

T-r-o-m-b-i.

Raise your right hand.

09:58:16

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

47

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

examined and testified as follows:

GB
OW
.C
OM

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

the MCSO?

A.

I am the chief of enforcement.

Q.

Is that called "chief deputy" for my --

10

A.

No, sir.

11

Q.

Is it deputy chief?

12

A.

It isn't, it's chief.

13

have what they term executive chiefs, and then you have the one

14

and only chief deputy.

15

Q.

And your domain is operations command, is that correct?

16

A.

Sworn operations, yes.

17

Q.

And that's basically the patrol function within MCSO, is

18

that fair to say?

19

A.

20

side of the house, if you will.

21

Q.

09:58:56

FO

There's only one chief deputy.

09:59:11

OF

TH
E

So you have deputy chiefs, then you

ND

Patrol, all of the investigations, everything on the sworn


09:59:27

Pretty much everything in MCSO other than custody and

detention, is that right?


A.

And administration, yes.

24

Q.

I'm going to start by talking about your role beginning in

25

early 2014 in gathering of video cameras and the resulting

FR

23

What is your present position at

IE

22

Good morning, Mr. Trombi.

09:59:42

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

tapes at the MCSO beginning of February of 2014.

What position were you in in February of 2014?

GB
OW
.C
OM

48

A.

I believe then I was chief of Patrol.

Q.

That's not the position you are in now.

A.

Correct.

Q.

And then the Human Smuggling Unit was one of those that

reported to you in that position as chief of Patrol?

A.

together.

I'm sorry.

It is not.

During that time I'm not sure that that unit was still

Q.

11

Unit report to you when you were Chief of Patrol?

12

A.

I was one of the supervisors, yes.

13

Q.

Well, you were the direct supervisor in line from the Human

14

Smuggling Unit.

15

future.

16

directly to you, is that correct?

17

A.

They could report to me directly, yes.

18

Q.

Sometimes they could skip you and report directly to

19

Mr. Sands, is that -- is that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

10:00:25

TH
E

I will use the term "HSU" for that in the


10:00:39

ND

OF

The lieutenants and the commanders of HSU reported

Yes, sir.

10:00:53

IE

But you were their immediate supervisory level over the

HSU.
A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Now, let me show you -- I'd like to put up Exhibit 151.

25

This has been admitted and stipulated to, so --

FR

23

Prior, before it was disbanded, did the Human Smuggling

FO

10

22

10:00:08

10:01:07

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MR. POCHODA:
Honor.

5
6

Nothing is admitted till I

admit it, and I haven't admitted anything.

3
4

Guess what?

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

That's why I quickly changed, Your

It has been stipulated by the parties for admission.

Do we publish it first, then to you and the witness,


Judge?

THE COURT:

Do you have any objections to the admission of

Yes.

Exhibit 151, Ms. Iafrate?


MS. IAFRATE:

11

THE COURT:

12

MR. COMO:

13

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.

No, Your Honor.

TH
E

If you want to put together a list of

stipulated exhibits at the break, I'll admit them.

All right?

16

(Exhibit No. 151 is admitted into evidence.)

17

MR. POCHODA:

OF

Exhibit 151 is admitted.

Honor?

THE COURT:

20

BY MR. POCHODA.

21

Q.

It can be published.
10:01:52

Can you see that, Chief Trombi?

A.

Yes, sir, I can.

Q.

And this exhibit has a number of pages.

FR

23

Could we publish to everybody, Your

IE

22

10:01:38

ND

19

10:01:31

Mr. Como?

15

18

10:01:21

FO

10

14

49

At the bottom of

24

each of the page is an e-mail from yourself, is that correct?

25

A.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

10:02:09

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

50

Q.

And that was sent to various others at the MCSO, right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And you were seeking a count of, as it states here, how

many deputies are presently using recording devices, is that

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You were not seeking the number of deputies that at any

time in the past had used a recording device, were you?

A.

I didn't specify so.

10

Q.

And you were asked to send out this request for information

11

by Chief Sheridan, is that right?

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

And you were informed by Chief Sheridan that it was needed

14

by Chief Freeman in order to fulfill the information for a

15

grant that he was seeking, is that right?

TH
E

Objection, Your Honor, leading.

17

MR. POCHODA:

Your Honor, it is my understanding that

OF

MS. IAFRATE:

as we did at trial, that for adverse witnesses we could ask

19

leading questions.

ND

All right.

I'm going to allow some leeway

10:03:07

when it's an MCSO witness.


You are currently with MCSO, as I understand your

testimony.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

22

18

21

10:02:41

10:02:56

16

20

10:02:21

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

THE WITNESS:

25

THE COURT:

Yes, sir, that's correct.

I'm going to allow some leading.

You

10:03:16

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

may -- you may do so.

MR. POCHODA:

Thank you.

THE WITNESS:

And I apologize, sir.

repeat the question.

MR. POCHODA:

Yes.

GB
OW
.C
OM

51

If you could

BY MR. POCHODA.

Q.

Chief Sheridan that the information in the e-mail in

Exhibit 151 was needed by Chief Freeman, is that right?

You were informed at that time when requested by

A.

No, sir.

11

Q.

What were you told that information was required for?

12

A.

There had been a conversation in a common area on the 5th

13

floor of the Sheriff's Office headquarters where a governor's

14

Office of Highway Safety grant for body cameras, specifically

15

for our Lake Patrol deputies who were the ones that typically

16

enforce DUI enforcement, was going to be given to us, and there

17

was a realization at that point that we didn't have a policy to

18

address the usage and distributions of those items.

19

that reason, Chief Deputy Sheridan asked me to begin inquiring

20

as to what we currently had out there is the reason he asked.

21

Q.

TH
E

So for

ND

OF

10:04:02

10:04:33

IE

So at that point in time, in February of 2014, there was

no one place where one could look to see the total number of
video cams that deputies at MCSO were using, is that fair to

FR

23

10:03:35

FO

10

22

10:03:24

24

say?

25

A.

Yes, sir, that's fair to say.

10:04:50

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

52

Q.

And there was no general regulation governing the use of

video cams at the MCSO at that time, is that right?

A.

As I'm aware, yes, correct, there was not.

Q.

And to your knowledge, there was no policy concerning the

retention of any tapes that resulted from the use of those

cams, is that right?

A.

I believe that's correct, sir.

Q.

And if you could take just a look through this Exhibit 151,

to your recollection, does that -- do these responses indicate

GB
OW
.C
OM

the response -- all of the responses that you got for sending

11

out that e-mail on February 19th of 2014?

12

A.

I don't have the ability to --

13

Q.

Oh, that's right.

TH
E

14
15

MR. POCHODA:
slowly?

Thank you.

17

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

16

22

THE COURT:

FR

23
24
25

10:05:45

Your Honor, may the witness be handed

He certainly may.

MR. POCHODA:

IE

21

THE COURT:

ND

19
20

Is there a way to scroll through this

this multipage exhibit so that he could answer the question?

18

10:05:28

FO

10

10:05:03

10:05:53

We should have one.

THE WITNESS:
MS. WANG:

I don't have a clean copy.

Thank you.

Your Honor, may I approach the witness with

a copy?
MR. POCHODA:

He did it.

10:06:32

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MS. WANG:

Oh, I beg your pardon.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE WITNESS:

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Thank you.

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

all, the e-mail that you sent out in February of 2014

requesting the identification of present users of video cams

and videotapes made from those cams?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

And do those appear to be the responses that you got to

11

that e-mail?

12

A.

Yes, they do.

13

Q.

Chief, I'd like to show you now -- well, before I do, I'd

14

like to turn to May 14th of 2014.

15

on that day when you were asked by Chief Sheridan to send out

16

another e-mail concerning videotapes and cameras, is that

17

correct?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

And can you describe how you were informed that

20

Chief Sheridan was interested in speaking to you about this?

21

A.

10:07:00

10:07:18

Do you recall at some point


10:07:46

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

Does that appear to be, first of

10:08:02

I was summoned from my office to the sheriff's office,

which is located on the same floor, but I don't recall how or


by what means that occurred.

FR

23

And the question was:

IE

22

53

24

Q.

And what happened when you got to the sheriff's office?

25

A.

I knocked on the closed door.

10:08:23

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Q.

And then what?

A.

It opened and I stepped inside.

Q.

And who was present?

A.

Present at that time was Chief Deputy Sheridan, Sheriff

Arpaio, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey, and I believe Ms. Stutz.

Q.

Chief Sheridan at that time, is that right?

A.

Yes, sir, correct.

Q.

And what specifically did Chief Sheridan speak to you

GB
OW
.C
OM

11

A.

12

motion on the conference table that he was seated at and said

13

words to the effect of, "I want you to collect all video and

14

get it up to Sergeant Mike Reese in Internal Affairs."

15

Q.

And what else did he say?

16

A.

That was it.

17

Q.

And what did you take, quote, all video, quote, to mean?

18

A.

Just that: all video that was in existence within Patrol

19

and within deputies' use.

20

Q.

21

collected from?

10:08:57

FO

about?

10:09:22

ND

OF

TH
E

As best I can recall, he kind of made a finger-tapping

10:09:41

IE

And did he give you the dates that he wanted that video

A.

Well, no, but by "all" I would assume all.

Q.

You assumed it meant any time in the history of MCSO that a

FR

23

10:08:39

And I believe that the only person who spoke to you was

10

22

54

24

video had been made --

25

A.

Yes.

10:09:56

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Q.

-- is that correct?

A.

I'm sorry.

Q.

And did he limit it to any particular subject matter of

video?

A.

hundred percent certain right now.

Q.

that videotapes of a particular vehicle stop incident are

useful tools in assessing whether there were improper actions

Yes, sir.

GB
OW
.C
OM

55

It might have been traffic stops, but I'm not a

And did you -- let me ask you generally, you would agree

by an officer involved in that incident, is that right?

11

A.

In part, yes.

12

Q.

In part.

13

A.

That means a useful tool to confirm or deny allegations

14

made by somebody who's complaining or the conduct of a deputy.

15

Q.

16

camera was on, of what occurred within the range of that

17

camera, is that fair to say?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

And that may help either clear a deputy who's been the

20

subject of a complaint or confirm that there were improper

21

actions, is that right?

TH
E

What does that mean?

10:10:43

10:10:58

IE

ND

OF

It enables you to have a visual record, to the extent the

A.

Yes, it is.

Q.

You would also agree that an officer who had acted

FR

23

10:10:25

FO

10

22

10:10:01

24

improperly during the course of any one of these incidents and

25

vehicle stops would be hesitant from having that video go

10:11:12

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

public to superior officers, is that right?

2
3

MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor.

argumentative.

THE COURT:

Foundation, and

GB
OW
.C
OM

56

Do you want to lay some foundation,

Mr. Pochoda?

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

tape possible, is that right?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

And in your approach to that task, you were aware that some

11

officers might be hesitant to give you all of the tapes that he

12

or she had made during the course of his or her activities at

13

the Sheriff's Office, is that right?

I'm interested in your -- your task was to try to get every

MS. IAFRATE:

15

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:
sorry.

19

BY MR. POCHODA:

20

Q.

21

question.

I'm

ND

IE

In your approach -- let me backtrack.

Strike that

10:12:08

And once you got the instructions from Chief Sheridan,

you -- what did you see your job as doing with regards to the

FR

23

And the question, again, sir?

10:11:59

18

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

I'll allow the witness to answer yes or no

OF

to the question.

17

22

10:11:37

FO

TH
E

14

16

10:11:26

24

videotapes that had existed any time within the MCSO?

25

A.

To communicate that to the sworn commanders within the

10:12:25

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

57

Sheriff's Office.

Q.

number of tapes that were in fact collected?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And in figuring out how to maximize the number of tapes,

you were aware that there might be some tapes that demonstrated

improper conduct during an incident or vehicle stop, is that

right?

A.

No.

10

Q.

You thought that no tape could possibly do that?

11

A.

I didn't think that -- I didn't think that, and that wasn't

12

a thought when deciding to send that e-mail to start collecting

13

all video.

14

Q.

15

deputies might well not want the information that a tape

16

revealed to become public through your collection, is that

17

right?

18

A.

That is correct, yes.

19

Q.

So you didn't figure out how to maximize getting such tapes

20

when there's an interest in not having them go public.

21

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

TH
E

FO

10:12:53

So you didn't take into consideration the fact that some

OF

10:13:12

ND

Q.

10:13:25

Correct.

And did Chief Sheridan in any way indicate to you how to --

what steps to take in order to maximize the receipt of all

FR

23

10:12:40

IE

22

And was your understanding that you were to maximize the

24

tapes that had been made?

25

A.

He did not.

10:13:41

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

58

Q.

was no central registry of all tapes that had been made via

cams during traffic stops, is that right?

A.

Not that I was aware of, correct.

Q.

And you would agree, then, that if an officer chose to not

provide a tape that he or she had in his possession, there was

no way of knowing that that tape had ever existed.

A.

Correct.

Q.

If we could look at -- I do have a copy -- Plaintiffs'

Exhibit 38.

11

MR. POCHODA:

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. POCHODA:

14

MR. COMO:
exhibits.

Are you going to move to admit Exhibit 38?

MR. POCHODA:

18

THE COURT:

S
ND

Okay.
Your Honor --

10:14:56

We're going to show him Exhibit 38 and not

what you're going to represent is Exhibit 38.

FR

23

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

22

Then can I show it to him?

You may show it to the witness only.

MR. POCHODA:

THE COURT:

10:14:41

Then I'm not going to let you admit it.

OF

17

21

This has also been stipulated to.

I don't know what he's referring to.


THE COURT:

20

Yes.

Your Honor, we haven't stipulated to any

16

19

10:14:26

Your Honor, may I --

TH
E

15

10:14:01

FO

10

And as you said, even at this point in time in 2014, there

GB
OW
.C
OM

Nick, will you please give the witness Exhibit 38?

24

Yes, Ms. Iafrate.

25

MS. IAFRATE:

That was my concern.

Thank you.

10:15:10

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

Have you had a chance to review this, Chief?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And is this the e-mail that you referred to a little bit

ago that you sent out in response to Chief Sheridan's request

on May 14th, 2014?

A.

Yes, sir, it is.


MR. POCHODA:

I'd move this be admitted into evidence,

Your Honor.

11

THE COURT:

Any objection, Mr. Como?

12

MR. COMO:

No objection, Your Honor.

13

THE COURT:

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

THE COURT:

16

(Exhibit No. 38 is admitted into evidence.)

TH
E

No objection.
10:16:13

OF

Exhibit 38 is admitted.

BY MR. POCHODA:

18

Q.

19

number of persons that you listed to receive this e-mail, is

20

that right?

21

A.

ND

Chief Trombi, you'll see at the top that there are a

10:16:29

Yes, sir.

IE
Q.

And how did you make the selection as to who would get this

e-mail?

FR

23

10:16:10

Ms. Iafrate?

17

22

10:15:54

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

59

24

A.

I believe that I ensured I got this to every sworn

25

commander and his or her second in command or lieutenant.

10:16:47

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

60

Q.

And again, if we look at the body of this e-mail, you start

off by referring to your earlier e-mail that we have introduced

as Exhibit 151, is that correct, that several weeks we

collected information from your districts and divisions?

Is that referring to the earlier e-mail we just

GB
OW
.C
OM

discussed?

A.

Yes, sir, it is.

Q.

And as indicated, that earlier e-mail was talking about

present cameras, present video cams, is that right?


A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Now, and when it says in the second line here were

12

utilized -- how many video cameras were utilized in your normal

13

Patrol functions, what does that mean, "normal Patrol

14

functions"?

15

A.

16

the road in Patrol.

17

Q.

18

vehicles, is that correct?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

differently in this e-mail on May 14th in 2014 as compared to

TH
E

OF

10:17:58

And at the MCSO, the patrols are done by deputies in

And so what is different and what were you asking for

10:18:13

the e-mail sent out in February of 2014?


A.

FR

23

That's a generalization of what deputies are doing out on

IE

22

10:17:39

FO

10

ND

10:17:24

The February e-mail was in an effort to identify how many

24

cameras existed.

This e-mail specifically asked that all the

25

video from those cameras be gathered, collected, and sent to

10:18:43

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

61

lieutenant -- I'm sorry -- Sergeant Reese, and that all video,

in bold words, is to be preserved.

Q.

at earlier years, 2008, 2009, that might no longer be in use in

2014, is that correct?

A.

That was possible, yes.

Q.

So that this e-mail would not have gotten videotapes made

by those cameras, is that right?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You would agree that there were video cams that were used

I don't know what videos were collected as a result of this

e-mail.

11

Q.

12

discuss with anybody -- Chief Sheridan, the monitor, anybody --

13

what language should be used to maximize the collection of

14

existing videotapes?

15

A.

No, sir, I did not.

16

Q.

Chief, if we could turn to an earlier period before your

17

present promotion and when you had the direct supervisory role

18

over the HSU, one of the deputies in HSU was Deputy Charley

19

Armendariz, is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

10:20:08

ND

OF

TH
E

And again, in doing -- composing this e-mail, did you

Yes, it -- he was, yes.

10:20:52

IE

And before Mr. Armendariz's unfortunate death, had you had

occasion to meet with him while he was at HSU?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Did you ever work with him on any particular stops,

25

incidents, or projects?

FR

23

10:19:38

FO

10

22

10:19:21

10:21:09

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

No, sir.

Q.

And while you worked on the first supervisory level over

HSU, the first lieutenant that you worked with was Lieutenant

Sousa as the commander of HSU, is that correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And then you worked with Lieutenant Jakowinicz when he

replaced Lieutenant Sousa in 2012, is that right?

A.

That is correct.

Q.

At some point you were made aware of numerous complaints

GB
OW
.C
OM

62

against Deputy Armendariz from civilians based on his practices

11

during vehicle stops, is that right?

12

A.

Based on his behavior, yes.

13

Q.

And you were made aware of that by information presented to

14

you both by Lieutenant Jakowinicz and by Sergeant Trowbridge,

15

is that right?

16

A.

And Lieutenant Sousa.

17

Q.

And Lieutenant Sousa prior.

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Do you recall when Lieutenant Sousa first informed you of

20

concerns about the behaviors of Deputy Armendariz while at HSU?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

10:22:17

Many years ago, but I don't -- I don't have a good

time frame to be able to say.


Q.

FR

23

10:22:02

IE

22

10:21:41

FO

10

10:21:27

And in what form did he pass on information of

24

Mr. Armendariz to you?

25

A.

He expressed to me that he had a complaint that had been

10:22:37

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

63

brought to him by a female motorist who alleged mistreatment, I

believe, in general terms, with regards to a traffic stop that

she was involved in where Deputy Armendariz was the deputy who

stopped her.

Q.

And he reported this orally to you?

A.

I believe he called me, but, yes -- I'm sorry.

orally.

Q.

lieutenant at HSU, report any other examples of concern about

I'm sorry.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Yes.

An -- yes,

And did Lieutenant Sousa, during the period when he was a

Mr. Armendariz?

11

A.

12

complained -- I don't think that came through Lieutenant Sousa,

13

so my answer would be no to that one.

14

Q.

Who would have told you about that second incident?

15

A.

That may have come up through Deputy Chief MacIntyre.

16

Q.

And what was the complaint, if you recall?

17

A.

It was involving a state legislator who was en route to

18

session who had been stopped for speeding by Deputy Armendariz.

19

Q.

20

Mr. Armendariz during those reported incidents?

21

A.

I'm sorry.

10:23:42

OF

TH
E

There was another incident involving a motorist who

ND

And what steps did you take to check the behavior of


10:24:15

IE

I reviewed the video that had been captured by Deputy

Armendariz.
Q.

FR

23

10:23:20

FO

10

22

10:23:03

You were aware that Deputy Armendariz was utilizing a cam

24

in his patrol car, is that right?

25

A.

At those points, yes.

10:24:31

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

64

Q.

Do you recall what years these incidents took place?

A.

I do not, sir.

Q.

Lieutenant Sousa was still the commander at HSU?

A.

He -- he definitely was for the female motorist.

hundred percent certain on the other issue I mentioned.

Q.

these two incidents?

A.

it was Lieutenant Sousa who came to my office with the DVD and

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm not a

And who else was with you when you reviewed the tapes of

The first incident regarding the female motorist I believe

viewed it with me.

11

Q.

Anyone else?

12

A.

Not that I recall.

13

Q.

And that complaint was resolved, again, with the attorney

14

for the woman driver, is that correct?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And Deputy Chief MacIntyre was involved in resolving that

17

complaint for the MCSO, is that right?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

And the second incident involved a stop of -- or involved,

20

yeah, a stop of an Arizona legislator, is that right?

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

10:25:23

10:25:41

Yes, sir.

IE
Q.

And Deputy Chief MacIntyre was involved in resolving that

complaint as well for the MCSO?

FR

23

10:25:07

FO

10

22

10:24:48

24

A.

I believe he was to some degree, yes.

25

Q.

You knew he was involved in some manner.

10:25:59

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Had you, in your years of -- when you had supervisory

authority over the HSU, reviewed any other tapes of

Mr. Armendariz?

A.

Yes.

Q.

When was that?

A.

That was shortly before May 14th of 2014.

Q.

Now, let me -- let me withdraw that.

were in the supervisory role over HSU, which ended prior to

GB
OW
.C
OM

11

A.

12

apologize.

13

Q.

14

position over HSU.

15

disbanded.

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

Prior to HSU disbanding, had you reviewed any other tapes

18

other than the two we just spoke about concerning Deputy

19

Armendariz?

20

A.

21

Q.

I thought I heard two questions in there.

10:26:37

TH
E

I was interested in while you were in a supervisory


That ended prior to 2014 because HSU was
10:26:52

ND

OF

Is that right?

No, sir, not that I recall.

10:27:02

IE

And you reviewed those two because there was specific

complaints made about Deputy Armendariz, is that right?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

You didn't review any of his tapes just to check his

25

performance as a deputy within HSU.

FR

23

FO

2014, is that correct?

22

10:26:19

I meant while you

10

I'm sorry.

65

10:27:14

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

I did not, correct.

Q.

And you did not review the tapes of any other deputies

while you were in a supervisory role over HSU about their

performance at HSU.

A.

Correct.

Q.

And you did not do that even when some complaints came in

about HSU deputies, is that right?

I withdraw that question.

At some point there were e-mails sent to you from

GB
OW
.C
OM

66

Lieutenant Jakowinicz about his concerns of the performance of

11

Deputy Armendariz, is that correct?

12

A.

13

not sure.

14

Q.

FO

10

Okay.

15

Let me --

MR. POCHODA:

If the witness can be shown Plaintiffs'

Exhibit 118, please.

17

BY MR. POCHODA:

18

Q.

19

2-21-13 from Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

20

A.

21

Q.

Do you see that?

ND

Chief, if you could take a look at that, it's a memo dated

Yes, sir, I do.

10:29:05

And that was directed to you, is that correct?

IE
A.

FR

23

10:28:19

OF

16

22

10:28:00

I'm

TH
E

I don't know if it was an e-mail or a conversation.

10:27:27

Yes, it is.
MR. POCHODA:

I would move this into admission.

24

THE COURT:

Any objection?

25

MR. COMO:

No, Your Honor.

10:29:21

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 118 is admitted into evidence.)

67

No, Your Honor.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Exhibit 118 is admitted.

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

fourth line down, the third line down to the end of that line,

it says, "After reading the attached memo from Sergeant

Trowbridge"?

And if you'd just take a look at this document, on the

9
A.

Yes, I do.

11

MR. POCHODA:

If the witness can be shown Exhibit 133,

please.

13

BY MR. POCHODA:

14

Q.

15

Lieutenant Jakowinicz?

16

A.

Lieutenant Jakowinicz, yes, sir.

17

Q.

And was that the -- did you see that as the attachment to

18

the e-mail we discussed --

19

A.

20

Q.

21

discussed, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 118?

You see that's a memo from Sergeant Trowbridge to

OF

10:30:41

Could you repeat the question?

ND

I'm sorry, sir.

Had you seen this as the attachment to the e-mail we

10:30:53

IE
A.

118 is -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to equivocate on the

matter -- is a memo, not an e-mail --

FR

23

TH
E

12

22

10:29:45

FO

10

Do you see that?

10:29:32

24

Q.

I apologize.

25

A.

-- just for clarification.

10:31:10

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

68

Q.

gotten the attached memo from Sergeant Trowbridge that we

talked about.

A.

Sir, I'm sorry.

Q.

Lines 3 and 4 of Exhibit 118.

A.

Okay.

Q.

See the end of line 3, "After reading the attached memo

from Sergeant Trowbridge"?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

And I'm asking you now:

11

Exhibit 133, that I've just handed you, or has been handed to

12

you?

13

A.

I don't specifically recall.

14

Q.

Is it possible it was the attached memo that the lieutenant

15

is discussing?

16

A.

It's possible, yes.

17

Q.

The lieutenant was bringing to your attention concerns

18

about the continued presence of Deputy Armendariz at the HSU,

19

is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

Are you asking me if --

I'm on 118.

10:31:32

10:31:44

TH
E

FO

Did you get that attached memo,

ND

OF

10:32:07

His continued presence?

10:32:21

Yes.

A.

Yes.

Q.

In fact, the end of that memo, this is Exhibit 118, on the

FR

23

Did you see that?

IE

22

We discussed that Lieutenant Jakowinicz stated that he had

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

bottom, from the lieutenant, states, quote:

"I would like to

25

request that Deputy Armendariz be transferred to an assignment

10:32:36

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

more suited to him."

Do you see that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

69

A.

Yes, sir, I do.

Q.

And that memo goes through some of his reasons, the

lieutenant's reasons, for thinking that it was an inappropriate

assignment to maintain Deputy Armendariz at the HSU, is that

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And Sergeant Trowbridge, in his two-page memo, also sets

out a number of concerns about Deputy Armendariz, is that

11

right?

12

exhibit is in evidence that he is quoting.

14
15

THE COURT:
in evidence.

MR. POCHODA:

ND

MS. IAFRATE:

20

THE COURT:

Foundation, Your Honor.

Sustained.

10:33:28

IE

BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.

If you'd take a look at what's been given to you as

Plaintiffs' 133, you indicated before that you may have read

FR

23

I would like to move

No objection.

MR. COMO:

19

22

That's correct.

10:33:16

now the entry of Plaintiffs' 133 into evidence.

18

21

He's not quoting the exhibit, but it isn't

OF

16
17

Your Honor, I do not believe that that

TH
E

13

MS. IAFRATE:

10:33:04

FO

10

10:32:48

24

this, is that correct?

25

A.

I may have, yes.

10:33:48

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MR. POCHODA:

I would move it into evidence, Your

MS. IAFRATE:

Foundation, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Honor.

Sustained.

GB
OW
.C
OM

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

concerns about the performance of Deputy Armendariz, is that

right?

A.

Yes.

You know, Mr. Pochoda, we need to take a

FO

THE COURT:
morning break.

We took a long time discussing business.

12

just looking for a good point that won't interrupt your

13

examination too much.

14

MR. POCHODA:

15

THE COURT:

TH
E

11

All right.

I'll

10:34:20

MR. WALKER:

Are we ready to resume?


Your Honor, before we proceed, may I be

ND

19

heard briefly?

10:51:57

IE

Before we proceed may I be heard briefly?


Because of my late entry into the case I haven't seen

most of these trial exhibits, and I'm not really in a position

FR

23

We'll take 15 minutes.

OF

THE COURT:

18

22

I'm

see the parties back here in 15 minutes.


(Recess taken.)

21

10:34:08

This is as good as any.

17

20

10:33:58

You were aware that Sergeant Trowbridge had significant

10

16

70

24

intelligently to say whether I object to or not.

So in

25

addition to my continuing objection, I wonder if the Court

10:52:06

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

would allow me a continuing reservation of right to object

after I become familiar with the documents?

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to direct you to provide the

documents to Mr. Walker.

an objection on the record if you wish to do so at the time.

71

You can look at them, stand and state

I believe I have ruled that, as I understand the Ninth

Circuit's opinion, Ms. Iafrate has adequately and does now

represent the interests of the County.

here as a separate party, because you may wish to assert some

The fact that you're

sort of a defense I'm going to allow you to do whatever I've

11

said, so I'll allow you to look at the exhibits.

12

As you have looked at any of the exhibits that have


been admitted so far, do you have any objections to make to any

14

of them?

TH
E

13

15

MR. WALKER:

16

THE COURT:

17

MS. IAFRATE:

22

24
25

10:52:58

OF

All right.

My apologies, Your Honor.

Based on

S
ND

You've already reserved your objection and

I think I -- I think I only restated what I said before.


MS. IAFRATE:

10:53:06

I believe that there has just been a

distinction.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

No.

something you just said, may I be heard?

19
20

10:52:46

FO

10

18

10:52:30

THE COURT:

All right.

MS. IAFRATE:

Go ahead.

You said I represent the interests of

the County, which I've not been retained to represent the

10:53:16

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

County.

That's Mr. Walker.


THE COURT:

I understand at this point that's true,

GB
OW
.C
OM

72

but up until now you have been representing functionally the

same interests, according to my understanding of their opinion,

and so I appreciate you for making the correction.

on, Mr. Walker's representing the interests of the County, I

presume, if you want to make that distinction.

there is a functional difference, as I've indicated from based

on the Ninth Circuit's opinion, but to the extent there is,


Mr. Walker is representing that difference.

11

that.

I'm not sure

I'll acknowledge

12

Thank you for the correction.

13

MR. WALKER:

14

THE COURT:

15

So, Mr. Walker, you don't have any objection to the

TH
E

Thank you, Your Honor.

All right.

18

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.

Or that I've admitted to date.

MR. WALKER:

From now on, I think it will save a great deal of time

ND

19

if we can review all the exhibits with all the parties, and if

21

you've got stipulations, I'll take them at noon.

FR

IE

20

23

10:53:53

exhibits that I've introduced to date.

17

22

10:53:45

OF

16

10:53:31

FO

10

From now

MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:

10:54:03

Okay?

Thank you.

If, in fact, Mr. Walker, it would help you

24

to have the lunch hour, I'll have them give you the exhibits

25

and you can look at them over the lunch hour.

10:54:17

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MR. WALKER:

I'd appreciate that, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MR. POCHODA:

Mr. Pochoda.
Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

73

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

which is the e-mail to you from defendant Jakowinicz.

memo.

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

He starts off in the memo by saying the purpose is to make

Chief Trombi, if we could look back at Exhibit No. 118,

I apologize.

The

you, Chief Trombi, aware of a pattern of documented complaints

11

that has persisted since May 2011 on Deputy Armendariz,

12

Number 1764.

TH
E

Do you see that?


A.

Yes, I do.

15

Q.

And you were aware even prior to getting this memo that

16

Mr. Armendariz had been the subject of a number of complaints

17

by persons he had stopped.

18

A.

I don't --

19

Q.

Is this the first time you had heard that?

20

A.

21

definitively say that there were some prior.

10:54:57

ND

Is that fair to say?

I don't believe so, based on the date here, but I can't

10:55:19

IE
Q.

Well, you were aware that he was the subject of more than

10 complaints, is that right?

FR

23

OF

14

22

10:54:45

FO

10

13

10:54:27

24

A.

Over a period of time, yes, sir.

25

Q.

And that was an unusually high number than any other HSU

10:55:35

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

74

deputy, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And in reviewing the two videotapes that you had for two of

the complaints you found that he had exhibited improper conduct

during those incidents, isn't that right?

A.

No.

Q.

In reviewing either of them did you find that he exhibited

improper conduct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Which one was that?

11

A.

The state legislator.

12

Q.

And what was the improper conduct in that?

13

A.

That the legislator made himself known that he was en route

14

to session and as a result Deputy Armendariz still detained

15

him.

16

Q.

17

that correct?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

And you saw that Deputy Armendariz had, in fact, pulled his

20

gun during that incident, is that right?

21

A.

TH
E

FO

10:56:03

10:56:19

ND

OF

And you saw the tape about the stop of the woman driver, is

Q.

No, sir.

10:56:31

No, sir.

You did not observe that he had pulled his gun during that

incident?

FR

23

10:55:54

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

I may be mixing it up with a later -- okay.

25

So that one you didn't observe any improper behavior.

10:56:44

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

Correct.

Q.

What did you do to investigate the other number of

complaints about his improper behavior during vehicle stops?

A.

lieutenants to conduct investigations.

Q.

Sergeant Trowbridge, is that right?

A.

At one time Lieutenant Sousa, yes.

Q.

Sousa.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I directed the immediate supervisors, sergeants, and

10:57:18

FO

And this is the response in part of -- this is

11

Exhibit No. 118 from Lieutenant Jakowinicz, is that right?

12

A.

13

investigation.

14

Q.

15

Armendariz, is that right?

16

A.

17

Deputy Armendariz may be receiving complaints.

18

Q.

19

his work at the HSU?

20

A.

21

directing Lieutenant Jakowinicz to remove Deputy Armendariz

TH
E

I do not know that this is the response to that

It discusses his conclusions about the behaviors of Deputy


10:57:35

OF

It discusses in general terms the issues related to why

ND

And at this point in time was Mr. Armendariz suspended from

10:58:02

IE

I'm not sure if this is the one that resulted in me

from his normal functions, to take his take-home vehicle away


from him, to provide Deputy Armendariz a ride to and from work,

FR

23

10:57:07

And his immediate supervisors are Lieutenant Jakowinicz and

10

22

75

24

because we had taken his vehicle from him.

25

Q.

You did that at some point in time?

10:58:36

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

76

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And why did you do that?

A.

I'm sorry?

Q.

And why did you make that decision?

A.

Because Lieutenant Jakowinicz informed me that Deputy

Armendariz had received, I believe, two or three complaints in

a very short period of time.

Q.

usual path of that would go to some sort of internal review of

GB
OW
.C
OM

Now, when an officer received complaints, would not the

the MCSO?

11

A.

Then?

12

Q.

Why not then?

13

A.

Because what we would do at those times was conduct

14

administrative inquiries to determine if there was any

15

wrongdoing.

16

Q.

17

aside these two that you reviewed the tapes, there was a

18

conclusion of the administrative review that there was no

19

wrongdoing?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

No.

10:59:18

ND

OF

And do you recall in each of these other incidents, leaving

I don't recall what the conclusions of those were.

10:59:28

IE

If there's a conclusion of some wrongdoing, does it then

get transferred over to some type of Internal Affairs


investigation?

FR

23

10:59:04

FO

10

22

10:58:43

24

A.

Back at that time it may have, yes.

25

Q.

Do you recall any Internal Affairs investigations

10:59:38

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

concerning Mr. Armendariz based on these numerous complaints

that he received?

A.

I don't, but I don't know that there wasn't one.

Q.

Well, if there was one, you would be aware of it as the

supervisor over HSU, is that correct?

A.

At some point I could have been made aware of that, yes.

Q.

Internal Affairs would generally let you know that one of

the deputies in the unit you were supervising was at least a

target, a principal in an Internal Affairs investigation, is

GB
OW
.C
OM

77

that fair to say?

11

A.

At that time, no, it's possible that they would not have.

12

Q.

Would you want to know if you're the supervisor of a

13

particular unit that a deputy in that unit was being

14

investigated for potential wrongdoing?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Just to confirm, at that point in time -- I'm talking about

17

2012 and 2013 -- you've stated, I believe, that you did not

18

review any other tapes of Deputy Armendariz other than the two

19

we have discussed, is that right?

20

A.

21

those were the only two videos that I reviewed.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

I don't know if I specified those dates, but I did say that

11:01:03

Well, those are the only two videos you reviewed of Deputy

Armendariz while you were in a supervisor position over the

FR

23

11:00:32

IE

22

11:00:15

FO

10

10:59:55

24

HSU, is that correct?

25

A.

Yes, sir.

11:01:18

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

78

Q.

And you were -- once you got this information from the

lieutenant and Sergeant Trowbridge, you were tasked to

determine whether Mr. Armendariz would remain an HSU deputy, is

that fair to say?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What other aspects of Mr. Armendariz' performance, and as

an HSU deputy, did you review in making that determination in

addition to the two tapes?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I took into consideration the fact that the investigations

that had been conducted were primarily unfounded in most cases.

11

Q.

Which investigations are you talking about now?

12

A.

The two that -- the two video -- well, the one video that I

13

mentioned with regards to the female motorist who was stopped,

14

and then my recollection is that the other administrative

15

investigations that were conducted by Lieutenant Jakowinicz, if

16

I recall correctly, and I'm not a hundred percent, were also

17

unfounded.

18

Q.

19

conduct on one of those two incidents, is that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

24
25

TH
E

OF

11:02:29

ND

So you indicated to us that you thought there was improper

With regards to the legislator, yes, sir.

11:02:47

IE

Of those two incidents that you reviewed via tape, you

found that one demonstrated improper conduct by Mr. Armendariz


and one did not, is that right?

FR

23

11:02:03

FO

10

22

11:01:34

A.

Correct.
I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to cut you off.

Correct.

11:03:07

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

79

Q.

Did you review any other aspect of Mr. Armendariz's

performance as an HSU deputy, including the manner in which he

collected and logged in evidence?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

You didn't take a look at any manner, the way he handled

evidence, or any -- or -- let me strike that.

GB
OW
.C
OM

For any of the HSU deputies while you were a

supervisor over the HSU, did you review their manner of

handling evidence items?


A.

No, sir.

11

Q.

And for Mr. Armendariz you did not review the incident

12

reports of his vehicle stops to see what evidence he had seized

13

in any one incident from the persons he had stopped?

14

A.

I did not, no.

15

Q.

So you had no idea what items of evidence, whether it's

16

license plates or forms of identification, Mr. Armendariz as a

17

normal course had taken from the persons he had stopped, is

18

that right?

TH
E

argumentative.
THE COURT:

11:04:16

I'll sustain it based on asked and

answered.
BY MR. POCHODA:

FR

23

Objection, Your Honor, leading and

IE

22

11:04:02

OF

MS. IAFRATE:

ND

19

21

11:03:40

FO

10

20

11:03:24

24

Q.

In any event, with Mr. Armendariz, did you ever check in

25

his -- as you evaluated his performance as an HSU deputy to see

11:04:28

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

80

whether for any incident he had logged in the evidence that he

had seized in a timely manner as required to the evidence and

property rooms?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

And you didn't do that for any HSU deputy while you were in

the supervisory position over HSU, did you?

A.

I did not.

Q.

And you do not know how many, for example, HSU deputies in

fact kept items of evidence in their desks?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I don't know that they did.

11

Q.

You don't know one way or the other, do you?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

And you don't know how many HSU deputies during the period

14

when you had supervision over HSU took items of evidence home,

15

did you?

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

And you don't know how many did or did not, did you?

18

A.

No, sir.

19

Q.

You never put out any instruction while you were in that

20

position to timely log evidence and not take it home, did you?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

11:05:26

I don't believe I did, no.


And you were not aware when you were in that supervisory

position -- strike that.

FR

23

11:05:17

IE

22

11:05:04

FO

10

11:04:44

Did you, while you were in that position, instruct HSU

personnel and deputies about how to maintain or utilize

11:05:47

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

videotapes?

A.

No, sir.

Q.

And you were not aware when you were in that supervisory

position if there was -- that there was any retention period

for videotapes made by HSU deputies?

A.

Correct.

Q.

So it's possible that a tape made by an HSU deputy via a

cam during a traffic stop in 2008 would no longer exist past

2009, is that correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I wouldn't know one way or the other.

11

Q.

"Is it possible?" was the question.

12

A.

Sure, it's possible, yes.

13

Q.

Because there's no requirement that they maintain those

14

tapes, was there?

15

A.

Say again?

16

Q.

There's no requirement that they maintain those tapes for

17

any period of time, was there?

18

A.

I'm not aware of any policy defining such.

19

Q.

And you did not put out any instruction that the tapes

20

should be maintained for any particular period, did you?

21

A.

11:06:21

TH
E

ND

OF

11:06:31

11:06:41

I did not.

IE
Q.

And you did not know how many of the deputies at that point

while you were in the supervisory position in fact timely

FR

23

11:06:00

FO

10

22

81

24

logged in their tapes into evidence as opposed to keeping them

25

in their desks or taking them home, did you?

11:07:03

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

82

A.

No.

Q.

So that as you attempted, and others at the MCSO, to

collect tapes now, not a little while ago but more recently,

once those numbers came in there would be no way for you to

assess whether -- let's sort of use an example.

got a thousand videotapes as a result of the e-mails.

would not know by that number whether that represented

90 percent of the tapes made by HSU deputies while you were the

supervisor or 30 percent, would you?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Let's say you


You

A.

Correct.

11

Q.

You would not know that.

12

A.

I would not.

13

Q.

And as we sit here today, do you recall any point in time

14

when any member of the HSU was in fact subjected to an Internal

15

Affairs investigation because of his or her behaviors or

16

performance while you were the supervisor?

17

A.

There may have been, but I -- I don't recall.

18

Q.

Are you familiar with what triggers Internal Affairs

19

investigations, what behaviors or allegations or charges

20

trigger Internal Affairs investigations within the MCSO?

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

11:08:19

I apologize, sir.

11:08:43

Could you repeat the question?

IE
Q.

Are you aware of what criteria there are for starting an IA

investigation?

FR

23

11:07:58

FO

10

22

11:07:39

24

A.

Allegations of misconduct.

25

Q.

Let me ask you, in 2009 at an earlier point you were found

11:08:57

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

83

to be in civil contempt by Judge Donahoe in state court, is

that correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you stated publicly that -- you said that was a

political decision and you would appeal it, is that right?

A.

I believe so.

Q.

And that civil contempt was upheld on appeal, is that

right?

A.

I -- I don't believe it was.

10

Q.

Well, the civil contempt was upheld, some of the remedy was

11

changed, isn't that fair to say?

12

A.

13

appeal process, but something to that effect, I believe.

14

Q.

15

proper civil contempt remedies, isn't that right?

FO

11:09:23

TH
E

Some of the moneys the appellate court found were not

17

THE COURT:

18

THE WITNESS:

OF

MS. IAFRATE:

11:09:41

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

I'm going to allow it.


I'm

And the question, again, sir?

sorry.

20

BY MR. POCHODA:

21

Q.

ND

19

11:09:50

IE

Some of the moneys that was required to be paid, the state

appeals court found was not a proper civil contempt remedy, is


that right?

FR

23

11:09:11

I'm not -- I'm not sure as to exactly what came out of the

16

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

25

was.

Again, I'm not sure what the final outcome of that appeal
11:09:59

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Q.

In any event, they -- the occasion of you being

found in civil contempt by the state court judge and making a

public statement about it did not occasion an IA investigation,

did it?

A.

I don't believe I was subject to one, no.

Q.

Were you surprised that you weren't subjected to an

Internal Affairs investigation given the seriousness of that

action by the state court judge?

A.

No.
MR. POCHODA:

If we could show the witness

Exhibit 119.

12

BY MR. POCHODA:

13

Q.

Have you seen this before?

14

A.

Yes, sir, I have.

15

Q.

This is a memo from yourself?

16

A.

It is.

17

Q.

Concerning Deputy Armendariz, is that right?

18

A.

Yes.

22

11:10:41

OF

11:11:07

I would move it into evidence, Your

Honor.

11:11:18

THE COURT:

FR

23

ND

21

MR. POCHODA:

IE

20

TH
E

11

19

11:10:12

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

Okay.

84

MR. COMO:

Any objection, Mr. Como?

THE COURT:

None, Your Honor.

24

MR. WALKER:

25

THE COURT:

Mr. Walker?
No objection, Your Honor.
Ms. Iafrate?

11:11:23

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 119 is admitted into evidence.)

MR. POCHODA:

THE COURT:

85

No, Your Honor.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Exhibit 119 is admitted.

If it could be published, Your Honor.

Yes.

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

you had decided to maintain or reinstate, I'm not sure which it

was at the time, but maintain Deputy Armendariz as a fully

Chief Trombi, this was your memo where you indicated that

functioning member of the HSU, is that right?

11

A.

In part, yes.

12

Q.

What's the other part?

13

A.

The other part is the fact that I spent an hour and 20

14

minutes, I believe, with him discussing the issues and making

15

him aware of the fact that he's received an inordinate amount

16

of complaints and that he needed to change what I believed to

17

be some of his nonverbal communication that was causing these

18

issues.

19

Q.

20

lieutenants had also met with Deputy Armendariz on numerous

21

occasions, is that correct?

TH
E

OF

11:12:09

11:12:26

IE

ND

And you were aware that both Sergeant Trowbridge and the

A.

I believe they had.

Q.

And they were not satisfied with the responses from

FR

23

11:11:55

FO

10

22

11:11:32

24

Mr. Armendariz nor felt that he would be a good person to

25

remain at HSU, is that right?

11:12:40

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

86

A.

I believe so, yes.

Q.

And the only additional information you had that they

didn't have was your review of these two videotapes we

discussed, is that correct?

A.

I'm sorry.

Q.

The additional information you had about Mr. Armendariz was

the review of the videotapes we had and your discussion with

him for an hour and 20 minutes?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Did you discuss the decision to maintain him as an HSU

11

deputy with anyone else?

12

A.

Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

13

Q.

You reported to Chief Sands at that point in time, is that

14

correct?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Did you discuss it with Chief Sands?

17

A.

At some point I believe I did.

18

Q.

It's a fairly important decision for the HSU because of the

19

controversial nature of Mr. Armendariz, isn't that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

11:12:56

11:13:17

OF

TH
E

FO

11:13:05

ND

A.

No.

11:13:36

It was not an important decision.


It's -- it's an important decision, but not specifically

because of HSU.

FR

23

Restate the question.

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Q.

Okay.

To any patrol unit it would be an important decision

25

when someone has been the subject of the number of complaints

11:13:47

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

87

about how he or she works in that unit to keep him or her

there, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So did you get approval from Chief Sands to keep him there

once you decided to do so before announcing that decision?

A.

I don't believe I did on this one.

Q.

And did you speak to Sheriff Arpaio about this before or

after you made this decision?

A.

No.

10

Q.

You did not think he would have an interest in this

11

particular decision.

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

At some point came your promotion to your present position.

14

When was that?

15

A.

July of 2014.

16

Q.

And that was a decision made by Sheriff Arpaio, is that

17

right?

18

A.

19

yes.

20

Q.

21

decision, is that fair to say?

11:14:38

OF

TH
E

FO

11:14:15

ND

Well, Sheriff Arpaio would have to sign off on that

A.

I don't know that he had to sign off.

Q.

He had to agree with it.

FR

23

11:14:03

I believe by Sheriff Arpaio and maybe the chief deputy,

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

the MCSO, is that right?

25

A.

It's a what position?

11:14:55

That's a top level position in

11:15:05

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

88

Q.

A top level position at the MCSO, is that right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And you would certainly have expected the sheriff would not

have been ignored in the chain of command approving your rise

to that position, is that right?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

And at the time that you were promoted you were involved in

two IA investigations, I believe initially as a witness

concerning the matters involving Deputy Armendariz, is that

GB
OW
.C
OM

right?

11

A.

12

Armendariz-related investigations at the time of my promotion.

I'm aware of being a witness in one of those

MR. STEIN:

Excuse me, Your Honor.

15

THE COURT:

Why?

16

MR. STEIN:

I'm going to object to any testimony

briefly?

Overruled.

THE COURT:

You may proceed.

ND

19
20

BY MR. POCHODA:

21

Q.

11:16:10

IE

Subsequently, you have been named a principal in two

investigations concerning the matters involving Charley


Armendariz and the evidentiary issues.

FR

23

11:15:57

relating to Internal Affairs investigations.

18

22

May I be heard

OF

17

TH
E

13
14

11:15:36

FO

10

11:15:19

24

A.

Yes, sir.

25

Q.

And you have been interviewed by the persons involved in

11:16:19

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

89

those IA investigations, is that correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And so far there's not been a disposition of either of

those investigations, is there?

A.

Not that I'm aware of.

Q.

And you have subsequently been now named a principal in a

third investigation, IA investigation, is that right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And what does that investigation involve?

10

A.

I believe it's directly related to the issuance of

11

Judge Snow's December 23rd, 2011 order.

12

Q.

The preliminary injunction in this case?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

Finally, I want to turn to some issues involving orders in

15

this case.

16

Judge Snow in this case on April 3rd, 2014, is that right?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And you were asked to appear, required to appear, because

19

of statements that you had made in a public community meeting,

20

is that right?

21

A.

11:16:33

TH
E

FO

11:16:43

11:17:01

OF

As you well know, you appeared at a hearing before

ND

Q.

11:17:23

Misstatements that I made, yes.


You had made misstatements concerning Judge Snow's May 2013

findings and conclusions, is that right?

FR

23

Has there?

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

And, in fact, you were invited to attend this community

11:17:35

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

90

meeting and you stated you were happy to do so because you

wanted to give out full information to all those in the

community, is that right?

A.

That is correct.

Q.

But, in fact, the information you gave out was inaccurate.

A.

Yes.

Q.

And, in fact, you were not -- at the time of that meeting

you had not even read Judge Snow's May 13th, 2013 decision, had

you?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I had not.

11

Q.

And you did not read it until shortly before the hearing on

12

April 3rd, 2014, correct?

13

A.

That is correct.

14

Q.

And amongst other things, you stated at that public meeting

15

that the findings of unconstitutionality by the Court were

16

based on the fact that deputies on average were holding

17

Hispanic drivers for 14 seconds longer than non-Hispanic

18

drivers, is that right?

19

A.

22

TH
E

OF

S
THE COURT:

You know, I appreciate, and I don't want

11:18:31

to curtail your testimony too much, but you've asked about this
in a timely fashion and I'm very familiar with Chief Trombi's
misstatements of my testimony and I'm very familiar with his

FR

23

Yes.

ND

21

11:18:16

IE

20

11:17:58

FO

10

11:17:46

24

recantation here on the stand, and if you want to review it

25

I'll allow you to do it briefly, but if we're looking for areas

11:18:52

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

to save time, I'm quite familiar with the history of this case.

MR. POCHODA:

Just one more question, Your Honor,

GB
OW
.C
OM

91

briefly.

BY MR. POCHODA:

Q.

published an op-ed piece in the Arizona Republic that also made

that same statement that the constitutional violations in this

case were based on that supposed 14-second matter?

Let me just ask, and you were aware that Chief Sheridan

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

Hearsay.

Well, it's clearly not being offered for

the truth of the matter asserted, so I'm going to overrule the

12

objection.

13

BY MR. POCHODA:

14

Q.

15

Sheridan in that newspaper piece, is that right?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

And at that same time of April of 2014 you had not read the

18

preliminary injunction in this case, correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

injunction of December 23rd, 2011, with anyone at the MCSO

You are aware that those statements had been made by Chief

OF

11:19:34

ND

As I stated earlier, yes, sir.


11:19:53

IE

And you had not discussed the content of the preliminary

prior to 2014, is that correct?


A.

That is correct.

24

Q.

And you did not know if the preliminary injunction that

25

we've been discussing required any changes in the practices of

FR

23

TH
E

11

22

11:19:25

FO

10

Objection, Your Honor.

11:19:02

11:20:17

Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

HSU personnel at the time you were supervising them, did you?

A.

Correct.

Q.

And in late 2011 you had supervisory authority over the

HSU, correct?

entered.

A.

chart, I'm not a hundred percent, but I believe so.

Q.

preliminary injunction had to be read by a person with

GB
OW
.C
OM

92

At the time the preliminary injunction was

I believe so.

Without a low org chart or organizational

And you were never informed by the sheriff that the

supervisory authority over the HSU, were you?

11

A.

No, sir.

12

Q.

And you were not aware of any changes in policy or practice

13

that were made by HSU personnel as a result of the Court

14

issuing the preliminary injunction, were you?

15

A.

TH
E

At that time, no.

MR. POCHODA:

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. IAFRATE:

22

24
25

11:21:08

Thank you.

I have nothing further.

Ms. Iafrate.

Your Honor, this exhibit is not in

ND

Could you pull up Exhibit 41, please?

THE COURT:

All right.

And just for me, please, and

11:21:57

the witness.

FR

23

evidence.

IE

21

OF

16

20

11:20:53

FO

10

19

11:20:37

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

Would you please hand him Exhibit 41.

We've got it a little bit better on the

screen now.
MS. IAFRATE:

Great.

11:22:22

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

THE WITNESS:

93

Thanks.
CROSS-EXAMINATION

GB
OW
.C
OM

2
3

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Exhibit 41.

A.

Yes.

Q.

What is it?

A.

This is an organizational chart of the Sheriff's Office for

a number of years.

I'm showing you what is marked and not in evidence as


Do you recognize it?

Q.

Does it have a date on it?

11

A.

They do.

12

Q.

Okay.

13

This is what you were referring to?

14

A.

TH
E

And so this is what you were calling an org chart.

MS. IAFRATE:

18

MR. WALKER:

No objection.

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

No objection, Your Honor.

No objection.

Exhibit 41 is admitted.

ND

19
20

BY MS. IAFRATE:

21

Q.

11:38:40

IE

Chief, does it show when this org chart was updated?

A.

Yes, it does.

Q.

And when is that?

24

A.

There's a date at the bottom stating updated February 20,

25

2015.

FR

23

11:38:40

admission of Exhibit 41.

17

22

Your Honor, I would move for the

OF

16

And they all appear to be the same.

Yes, ma'am.

15

11:22:45

FO

10

11:22:34

11:38:40

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Q.

So this isn't the organization chart that was in place at

the time of the events that you have been discussing with

Mr. Pochoda, correct?

A.

Correct.

MS. IAFRATE:

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

front of you?

A.

Can we pull up Exhibit 136?

Yes.

evidence.

Your Honor, this next exhibit is not in

Could -Yes.

13

MS. IAFRATE:

14

THE COURT:

Thank you.

TH
E

THE COURT:

And if they're not in evidence, so

specified, I'll just instruct my court deputy to show it to

16

you, me, and the witness.

OF

15

MS. IAFRATE:

Very well.

18

THE WITNESS:

Ma'am, I have to correct myself.

17

22

11:38:40

Okay.

THE WITNESS:

It is not accurate.

MS. IAFRATE:

Okay.

11:38:40

Hold on one moment.

Exhibit 136 is up on the screen and it's not in

evidence, so could we have it --

FR

23

IE

21

MS. IAFRATE:

ND

19

11:38:40

FO

MS. IAFRATE:

12

20

11:38:40

Well, as of today was that org chart correct that's in

10
11

GB
OW
.C
OM

94

24

THE COURT:

Go back to Exhibit 41.

25

MS. IAFRATE:

Thank you.

11:38:40

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Okay.

A.

140.

Q.

It should be Exhibit 41.

A.

My -- I'm sorry.

Q.

That's okay.

A.

It is 41.

Q.

Just so the record's clear, you're looking at Exhibit 41,

correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

So you wanted to correct me regarding Exhibit 41?


Exhibit 140.

I'm looking at it upside down.

I apologize.

A.

Yes, I am.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

A.

Yes.

13

Freeman.

14

Q.

It was in February 2015, correct?

15

A.

I'm sorry.

16

Q.

And he has since retired, correct?

17

A.

Correct.

18

Q.

That's the only correction that you wanted to make?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

A.

24
25

In the administration command chief it lists Scott

TH
E

That is not accurate as of today.

11:38:40

ND

OF

Yes, it was.

11:38:40

As the enforcement -- enforcement operations command chief.

IE
Q.

11:38:40

And you wanted to make a correction?

As of February 2015 what was your position with MCSO?

Correct.

FR

23

11:38:40

FO

10

22

95

Yes.

So now I want you to look at your screen and you're going

to be looking at Exhibit 136.


Do you recognize that or do you need a paper copy?

11:38:40

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

I recognize it as a low org chart from the Sheriff's

Office.

admission of Exhibit 136.

MR. COMO:

MR. WALKER:

MR. POCHODA:

THE COURT:

No objection.

No objection.

What is this purporting to show?

It has been described by the witness as an

MR. POCHODA:

And what date is the question that we

don't have in evidence?


THE COURT:

13

MR. POCHODA:

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. POCHODA:

16

THE COURT:

Yes.

And what is your objection?


Foundation.

OF

18

BY MS. IAFRATE:

19

Q.

20

County Sheriff's Office generates as updates are made to the

21

organization of the entity?

Ms. Iafrate?

IE

ND

Does this appear to be an org chart that the Maricopa

A.

25

Yes.

11:38:41

And I'm only able to look at one page of this thus

far.

FR
24

11:38:41

Can you lay some foundation, please,

17

23

11:38:41

Do you have an objection?

TH
E

12

22

11:38:41

org chart for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

10
11

Your Honor, I would move for the

FO

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

96

Q.

Understood, and we'll get there.


Can you scroll down just a little bit, please.

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Can you see in the bottom of the page, and it's pretty

blurry, a date on this?

A.

I believe so, yes.

Q.

And what's the date?

A.

July of 2007.

6
7

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MR. POCHODA:

Mr. Pochoda?

No objection.

THE COURT:

136.

Is that the exhibit number?

11

MS. IAFRATE:

12

THE COURT:

13

(Exhibit No. 136 is admitted into evidence.)

It is, Your Honor.

TH
E

136 is admitted.

14

BY MS. IAFRATE:

15

Q.

16

Exhibit 136, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And can you find where you are -- what page you are listed

19

in that document, if you are listed?

20

A.

21

Q.

24
25

11:38:41

ND

OF

You now have in front of you what's in evidence as

It would be on page identified as MEL 049522.


Okay.

IE

FR

23

11:38:41

FO

10

22

11:38:41

Your Honor, I would move for the

admission of Exhibit 136.

GB
OW
.C
OM

97

11:38:41

Go back up.

Could you go back?


Okay.
So this is under Enforcement Operations Command, is

that correct?

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

Yes.

Q.

And who is -- who was the head of Enforcement Operations

Command in 2007?

A.

Chief Brian Sands.

Q.

Who did you report to?

A.

Chief Brian Sands.

Q.

What was your position in 2007?

A.

I was the Patrol resource bureau chief.

Q.

And underneath that section is a variety of entities,

GB
OW
.C
OM

correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And you were -- you were in the chain of command for what

13

entities?

14

A.

15

court security, aviation, and SWAT.

16

Q.

And then it says high-risk responses.

17

A.

It is, yes.

18

Q.

When did your position as Patrol resource bureau chief

19

change?

20

A.

21

Q.

11:38:41

TH
E

11:38:41

Is that the same --

ND

OF

For animal abuse investigations, motors, K-9, extraditions,

I don't know.

11:38:41

IE

When were you promoted to your current position?

A.

July of 2014.

Q.

You discussed your role in the chain of command as it

FR

23

11:38:41

FO

10

22

98

24

related to HSU on direct examination.

25

A.

Yes.

Do you recall that?


11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

Q.

Do you

recall that?

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

And explain to us what you mean by they could report to

you.

A.

I was.

Q.

And why wouldn't they report to you, then?

A.

Because they had the ability to be able to report directly

to Chief Sands if they chose to do so.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You said that members of HSU could report to you.

99

You were in the chain of command, correct?

Q.

Did they do that?

11

A.

They did.

12

Q.

Was there any demarcation of what you were responsible for

13

as related to supervision of HSU in what then-Chief Sands was

14

responsible for?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Can you explain to the Court what the demarcation was?

17

A.

I would typically assist with administrative functions and

18

matters in order to assist Chief Sands.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND

And you reported to him?


Correct.

But let's be clear.

11:38:41

You're not denying that you were in

the chain of command as it relates to HSU, correct?


A.

That is correct.

24

Q.

Did you ever go out on the road regarding any saturation

25

patrols?

FR

23

11:38:41

IE

22

11:38:41

FO

10

11:38:41

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 100

A.

Not out on the road, no.

Q.

Did you ever go to any workplace locations when they were

conducting search warrants?

A.

Yes, I did.

Q.

So regarding the traffic stops, you weren't involved

hands-on regarding the traffic stops.

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

When did you first become aware of the Melendres matter?

A.

Probably when I heard it in the news and ongoing, I

GB
OW
.C
OM

suppose.

11

Q.

12

heard about it from the media?

13

A.

From my recollection, yes.

14

Q.

Prior to 2012 were you ever involved in any meetings

15

relating to Melendres and how it affected HSU?

16

A.

No.

17

Q.

Prior to 2012 did anyone ask you to gather any and all

18

videotapes that relate to HSU operations?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

anyone direct you to gather documents as they relate to HSU?

OF

Prior to 2012, as in the chain of command for HSU did

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Prior to 2012, where was HSU housed?

24

A.

They were down at the Enforcement Support building.

25

sorry.

FR

23

11:38:41

ND

No.

TH
E

When you say "in the news," you either read about it or

11:38:41

IE

22

11:38:41

FO

10

11:38:41

3325 West Durango.

I'm
11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 101

Q.

And that was called the Enforcement Support building?

A.

It was just called Enforcement Support.

Q.

Did -- prior to 2012 or 2013, for that matter, did you know

how or if HSU secured videotapes?

A.

No.

Q.

Were you aware that HSU had binders that held these

recordings?

A.

No.

Q.

Did anyone ask you to go look and see, in 2012 or 2013, or

GB
OW
.C
OM

any time prior to that, to go look and see if any

11

video recordings existed?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

You discussed on direct examination that at one point you

14

sent out an e-mail in February 2014, and this is in evidence as

15

Exhibit 151, and you looked at this on direct examination,

16

correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

In February 2014, why did you send out this e-mail?

19

A.

As I mentioned earlier, there had been a discussion, rather

20

impromptu discussion, that took place in a common area on the

21

5th floor of our headquarters.

TH
E

OF

11:38:41

ND

Q.

Let me stop you there.

11:38:41

Who was involved in the

conversation, as you recall?

FR

23

IE

22

11:38:41

FO

10

11:38:41

24

A.

It was myself, Chief Sheridan, and I believe Scott Freeman,

25

and --

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 102

Q.

Okay.

A.

The fact that there had been a governor's Office of Highway

Safety grant that was being awarded or issued to us at the

Sheriff's Office for the purchase of body cameras to be used by

our Lake Patrol Division for their role in the statewide DUI

task force.

Q.

So you explained that to me.

8
9

And what was discussed?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Let's just jump ahead.

Then why send out this e-mail?


attempting to do?

What were you

A.

11

were potentially out in or on the road at that time.

12

Q.

Why did you want to know that?

13

A.

Because I think there was a realization that we didn't

14

necessarily have a policy to address that.

15

Q.

16

had?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And then with that information what did you intend to do?

19

A.

I'm not sure at that point what the intent was.

20

just to gather -- to know what we had, because clearly it

21

appeared we may need to create policy to deal with that.

11:38:41

TH
E

11:38:41

OF

So the first step was to determine how many cameras you

ND

It was
11:38:41

IE
Q.

Prior to the dissemination of this e-mail in 2014, was

there a policy as it related to video cameras?

FR

23

To ascertain how many other cameras and recording devices

FO

10

22

11:38:41

24

A.

Not that I'm aware of.

25

Q.

Did someone instruct you to send out this e-mail?

11:38:41

A.

Yes.

Q.

Who?

A.

It was Chief Sheridan.

Q.

Did you run the language by him prior to sending it out?

A.

No.

Q.

Next, Mr. Pochoda jumped ahead to May 2014.

that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And he showed you Exhibit 38.

10

A.

Exhibit what?

11

Q.

38.

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

You generated this e-mail, correct?

14

A.

Yes, I did.

15

Q.

To the sworn side, correct?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

Chief MacIntyre's not one of the people that's listed on

18

this, correct?

19

A.

Correct.

20

Q.

21

A.

FO

11:38:41

TH
E

And this is in evidence.

OF

11:38:41

Q.

I do not see his name on it.


11:38:41

Correct.

This is a May 14, 2014 e-mail.

on it?

FR

23

11:38:41

Do you recall

Chief MacIntyre was never on the sworn side, correct?

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

ND

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 103

Can you see the time stamp

It's kind of muddled.

24

A.

Yes, I can.

25

Q.

When is it?

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 104

A.

It says 3:41 p.m.

Q.

Why did you send this e-mail out on 3:41 p.m.?

A.

Because that's when I completed putting it together and

sent it.

Q.

you were summonsed into a meeting, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And within that meeting was Tim Casey, Tom Liddy, Christine

Stutz, Chief Sheridan, and Sheriff Arpaio, correct?

So let's back up.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You discussed in direct examination that

A.

That is correct.

11

Q.

When you entered into the room were they all paying

12

attention?

13

A.

I don't know if they were or they weren't.

14

Q.

Did you hear other people talking?

15

A.

I don't recall.

16

Q.

You recall one person talking, and that was Chief Sheridan,

17

correct?

18

A.

That is correct.

19

Q.

And he gave you an order, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND
He did.

11:38:41

And he's in your chain of command, correct?

A.

He is.

Q.

Were you privy to that meeting, anything that was discussed

FR

23

11:38:41

IE

22

11:38:41

FO

10

11:38:41

24

prior to your entrance?

25

A.

No.

11:38:41

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 105

Q.

For example, did they give you a thumbnail sketch of what

they were discussing?

A.

No.

Q.

After their meetings were concluded, just regarding that

meeting, did anyone tell you what was discussed in that

meeting?

A.

No.

Q.

So when Chief Sheridan gave you the order, did you question

him why?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

No.

11

Q.

Why didn't you question him why?

12

A.

Because a couple of days earlier there had been a meeting

13

or gathering over in Internal Affairs with counsel and Internal

14

Affairs investigators and myself reviewing a video or two that

15

were collected or was collected as a result of the search

16

warrant that was executed at Charley Armendariz's residence.

17

Q.

18

order.

19

discuss some videos that were gathered as a result of a search

20

warrant at Charley Armendariz's home, correct?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

Okay.

So let's back up.

Let's go at it in chronological

ND

You're talking about a situation where you gathered to

11:39:23

Yes.

Q.

Did you review any videos?

A.

Two, yes.

24

Q.

And what -- just briefly describe the first one.

25

A.

The first one that I recall was a traffic stop.

FR

23

11:39:04

IE

22

11:38:41

FO

10

11:38:41

It was

11:39:36

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 106

daytime.

appeared to be in the parking lot of a strip mall or shopping

center.

driver and a male passenger that the -- what appeared to be or

sounded to be Charley Armendariz's voice who he was talking to,

and at some point the male passenger exits his passenger door

and gets out of the vehicle.

8
9

It was, I believe, a white passenger vehicle.

It

GB
OW
.C
OM

There was a female motorist -- I'm sorry -- female

Deputy Armendariz then, I think to -- to my shock and


probably others, draws his weapon and points it in the

direction of the male passenger, instructing him to get back

11

into the vehicle.

12

Q.

13

was dead, correct?

14

A.

15

or not.

16

Q.

Around the time frame of the search warrant, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

When you reviewed that video, what was your thought

19

process?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

This was a video that you reviewed after Charley Armendariz

I don't know -- I'm not sure if he was dead at that point

ND

OF

11:40:40

I was shocked to see that use of force being utilized.

11:40:50

IE

It was wrong?

A.

It absolutely was.

Q.

The second video that you reviewed, just briefly describe

FR

23

11:40:23

FO

10

22

11:40:01

24

what you saw.

25

A.

I believe that was a domestic violence situation.

It was

11:41:04

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 107

at night.

There were one or two, maybe three other deputies

that responded to a residence.

to both the victim and the male suspect.

Q.

this second video?

A.

No, none.

Q.

Who else besides you viewed these two videos at that time

prior to May 2014?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Charley was speaking in Spanish

Was there what you deemed to be problematic behavior on

There was a number of people in that room, to include

counsel --

11

Q.

By "counsel," who do you mean?

12

A.

I'm sorry.

13

was there; he may have been.

14

room.

15

Q.

16

these videos, a group gathered and looked at these two,

17

correct?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

For what purpose?

20

A.

21

a need, potentially, to collect all video out there, and that

Mr. Casey for sure.

I'm not sure if Mr. Liddy

TH
E

IA investigators.

It was a full

I'm not sure who else was in there.


11:42:04

ND

OF

So as a result of the search warrant and the gathering of

11:42:14

IE

I think we realized that or anticipated that there would be

this would be discovered or shown to the Court.


Q.

And that was prior to May 14, 2014, correct?

24

A.

Yes, ma'am.

25

Q.

So when you got the order from Chief Sheridan on May 14,

FR

23

11:41:45

FO

10

22

11:41:28

11:42:36

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 108

2014, you knew -- well, let me ask you:

Did you connect it to

the viewing of these videos?

A.

Immediately.

Q.

You didn't ask Chief Sheridan, "Is this regarding the

videos that we saw?"

A.

I didn't need to.

Q.

So on May 2014 you generated this e-mail to a variety of

people in order to do what?

A.

GB
OW
.C
OM

To collect and preserve all video to send it up to Internal

Affairs for whatever was then going to become of it.

11

Q.

Did you type this yourself?

12

A.

Yes, I did.

13

Q.

Why did you put "all video is to be preserved" in caps, in

14

capitals?

15

A.

16

saw that.

17

Q.

18

anyone tell you about a sealed portion of a court hearing that

19

occurred?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

11:43:28

OF

I wanted that to be seen, and I wanted to make sure people

ND

Prior to or any time after generating this e-mail, did

No.

11:43:50

IE

Did you ever read a transcript regarding a sealed hearing

that occurred?
A.

FR

23

11:43:16

FO

10

22

11:42:53

No.

24

MS. IAFRATE:

May I have Exhibit 154?

25

believe that it's in evidence.

I do not
11:44:10

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 109

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Do you have Exhibit 154 in front of you?

A.

Yes, I do.

Q.

Do you recognize what it is?

correct?

A.

It's numerous pages, yes.

Q.

So take a moment and flip through it, see if you recognize

it.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And it's multi pages,

A.

I recognize the format that it's in, yes.

11

Q.

Do you recognize what it's referring to?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

What's it referring to?

14

A.

It's explicit directions on how to proceed in collecting

15

any and all video.

16

Q.

What's the date on it?

17

A.

I'm sorry.

18

Q.

Just on the first one.

19

A.

I'm sorry.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

FR

23

11:45:09

What's the date on this?

May 19th.

What year?
I'm sorry.

IE

22

11:44:50

FO

10

11:44:40

11:45:20

2014.

That's okay.
And you said that you recognized the format.

24

it that you recognized the format?

25

A.

How is

Because the questions were specific as to how we wanted

11:45:26

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 110

everyone to be able to respond to this request uniformly.

2
3

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, I would move for the

admission of Exhibit 154.

MR. COMO:

MR. WALKER:

No objection, Your Honor.

MR. POCHODA:

Objection, foundation.

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 154 is admitted into evidence.)

No objection.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Overruled.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Exhibit 154 is admitted.

Q.

So Exhibit 154 is now in evidence.

11

you recognize the format because it was very specific what you

12

all wanted to occur regarding this incident.

13

the subject of these memos that are in Exhibit 154?

14

A.

15

of dash cams, eyeglass, body-mount cameras, even Taser weapon

16

cameras.

17

Q.

18

You're talking about video and audio.

19

A.

20

Q.

21

audio through office-wide, correct?

You said that

Any and all video cameras, video captured through the use

OF

11:46:26

So you're not just talking about the cameras, correct?

ND

And audio, yes, correct.


11:46:39

IE

So this was an attempt to gather any and all video and

A.

Yes.

Q.

This didn't just go to HSU, correct?

24

A.

It did not, correct.

25

Q.

It went to anyone that potentially could or did have a

FR

23

11:46:01

What -- what was

TH
E

FO

10

22

Okay.

11:45:47

11:46:50

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 111

camera through MCSO, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Or even private cameras, correct?

A.

Personally or office-issued, yes.

Q.

Let's just look at the first one.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Can you scroll up just a little bit?

So this is from Deputy Quintero to Captain Waylon?

To the top.

Who's Captain Waylon?

A.

Captain Waylon is the District 2 commander.

10

Q.

And what does District 2 mean?

11

A.

I'm sorry.

12

southwest valley.

13

Q.

14

audio go to all the districts?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And did you get a response from all the districts regarding

17

video and audio?

18

A.

19

went to Internal Affairs.

20

Q.

21

A.

District 2 is our patrol district in the

OF

TH
E

So did the information regarding the gathering of video and

ND

I believe so, but they were directed -- I believe these

Why didn't this information go directly to you?

IE

This was going to be part of the video and audio gathering

collection.
Q.

FR

23

FO

22

11:47:06

So your -- your e-mail in May 2014 that went out to the

24

Patrol district supervisors, they were told to then report

25

directly to IA regarding what they found?

11:47:27

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 112

A.

Yes.

Q.

You were no longer in that process once you generated the

e-mail?

A.

Correct.

Q.

I want to show you what's not in evidence as Exhibit 155.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And if you could scroll down to the bottom.

Keep going.

Chief Trombi, do you recognize --

THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate?

11

MS. IAFRATE:

12

THE COURT:

I have the name of a reporter who's doing

a live Tweet of everything that's in here on her cell phone.

TH
E

13

Sure.

FO

10

Can I interrupt you for a moment,

14

I'm going to give you two minutes to put away your


cell phones and if the marshals see anybody on a cell phone,

16

including -- is Christian Benevidez here?

17

Are you Tweeting, sir?

18

MR. BENEVIDEZ:

OF

15

THE COURT:

There's no Tweeting allowed.

ND

19

Yeah, with my computer.

record but there is no live Tweeting allowed.

21

down notes but we won't have any live Tweeting.

22

24
25

All right.

You can take

Thank you.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

FR

23

IE

20

You can

Q.

So I showed you what is Exhibit 155 that's not in evidence.


Do you recognize it?

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 113

A.

I have seen it, yes.

Q.

When was the first time you saw this?

A.

At my deposition a couple of weeks ago.

Q.

So let's go back up to the first page.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Stop.

No, go back down.

Do you see that sticker in the bottom right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

That indicates that that was part of your deposition on

March 31, 2015, correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

That was the first time you saw this letter?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Do you understand this to be a letter from Chief Sheridan

15

to Chief Warshaw?

16

A.

TH
E

FO

10

OF

Yes, I do, by the names that appear on it.


MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, I would move for the

18

admission of Exhibit 155.

19

17

ND

MR. COMO:

20

MR. WALKER:

FR

23

No objection.

MR. POCHODA:

IE

21
22

No objection.

THE COURT:

No objection.

155 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 155 is admitted into evidence.)

24

BY MS. IAFRATE:

25

Q.

So just to ask the obvious, before this letter was sent to

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 114

Chief Warshaw did you have an opportunity to review it for

accuracy?

A.

No.

Q.

When you looked at this letter at your deposition did you

recognize -- was it completely accurate?

A.

No.

Q.

Can you explain to the Court what pieces were not accurate

in your view.

A.

The third paragraph in parentheses, and if I may read?

10

Q.

Yes.

11

A.

"In preparation for this letter, I specifically asked

12

Deputy Chief Trombi, who told him to do this, and his response

13

was it was a collective decision of all parties."

14

Q.

15

people present, correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Including counsel.

18

A.

Correct.

19

Q.

And the sheriff himself.

20

A.

21

Q.

FO

TH
E

OF

ND
Correct.

But Chief Sheridan was the one that provided you the spoken

words to go generate that e-mail, correct?


A.

That is correct.

24

Q.

Are there any other areas in this letter that you did not

25

believe was completely accurate?

FR

23

Now, when you went into that room there were at least five

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 115

A.

If I may take a moment to read?

Q.

Sure.

A.

I don't see anything else in there that's inaccurate.

Q.

Chief Trombi, at some point in May 14, 2014 you had another

conversation with Chief Sheridan regarding your dissemination

of your e-mail, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

That was later in the night?

A.

Late afternoon, I believe.

10

Q.

Who else was present?

11

A.

Counsel, Ms. Stutz.

12

Q.

In your conversation with Chief Sheridan regarding your

13

e-mail, what was discussed?

14

A.

15

had just left and that they were going to formulate a plan on

16

how to collect video.

17

Q.

Did you -- were you surprised?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Why?

20

A.

21

already sent an e-mail out at his direction to do that.

FO

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

Because I quickly informed the chief deputy that I had

What was -- what, if anything, was Chief Sheridan's

reaction?

FR

23

That he had mentioned to me that the -- that Chief Warshaw

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

Shock.

Surprise.

25

Q.

Well, he was the one that gave you the directive.

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 116

A.

Correct.

Q.

So did he explain to you why he was shocked or surprised?

A.

He simply said he'd forgotten that he told me to do so.

Q.

Now, did he share with you anything further regarding his

discussion with the monitors?

A.

we hadn't done anything.

Q.

And that indeed was inaccurate, correct?

A.

Correct.

10

Q.

There was some discussion on your direct examination

11

regarding supervision of Deputy Armendariz.

GB
OW
.C
OM

12

Do you recall that?

FO

Nothing other than he had already told Chief Warshaw that

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And you were shown two documents, Exhibit 118, which is in

15

evidence, and 133, which is not.

TH
E

13

Do you have those two in front of you?

OF

16
A.

I do.

18

Q.

We're just going to show 118.

17

In the e-mail from Lieutenant Jakowinicz, what was the

ND

19
20

purpose of this memo to you, if you know?

21

A.

complaints that Deputy Armendariz was receiving; that those


complaints are not observed.

FR

23

IE

22

That he had taken steps to address issues related to

24

Q.

Well, let me stop you right there.

25

don't know what you mean.

"Are not observed."

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 117

So someone generated a complaint, correct?


A.

Correct.

Q.

And was that complaint valid or unfounded?

A.

Well, in Lieutenant Jakowinicz's words, he writes "are not

observed," which to me would mean also unfounded or not

sustained.

Q.

providing you with this memo -- what -- what relief did he

seek?

GB
OW
.C
OM

And do you know what the purpose of Lieutenant Jakowinicz

A.

What was what?

11

Q.

What relief did he seek?

12

A.

He wanted me to transfer him out of that unit.

13

Q.

As a supervisor -- how long have you been with the

14

Sheriff's Office?

15

A.

24 years.

16

Q.

How long have you been a supervisor?

17

A.

Since 1996, I believe, is when I was promoted to sergeant.

18

Q.

Is it a good management decision to move someone from one

19

unit to another just because someone is asking you to?

20

A.

21

issue; it only causes it to go elsewhere and manifest.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

Transferring a problem, in my experience, doesn't fix the

So you testified on direct examination that you met with

Deputy Armendariz, correct?

FR

23

What did he want you to do?

IE

22

FO

10

24

A.

Correct.

25

Q.

Why didn't you transfer him?

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 118

A.

Because in that meeting I believed when Charley Armendariz

told me that he was going to be more cognizant of his

mannerisms, of his nonverbal expressions, things that I

believed were causing these complaints, and I believed him.

Q.

people?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you believe Deputy Armendariz when he was expressing

that he would change?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Is it generally your personality trait to believe in

A.

I absolutely did.

11

Q.

When you were working and you were in the chain of command

12

of HSU, were you aware of a call between Sergeant Palmer and

13

the sheriff?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

Do you know who Sergeant Palmer is?

16

A.

I do.

17

Q.

Were you involved in the decision-making of where

18

saturation patrols should occur?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

search warrants would be executed for identity theft purposes?

TH
E

OF

ND

A.

FR

23

No.

Were you involved in the decision-making of where certain

IE

22

FO

10

No.

THE COURT:

Just for my clarification, Ms. Iafrate,

24

when you're asking about saturation patrols or search warrants,

25

I assume you're talking about post-preliminary injunction.

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 119

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

I'm talking about ever.

All right.

That's fine.

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

Would your answer change regarding those two questions?

A.

It would not.

Q.

I want to talk to you about --

Would it make a difference if I gave you a time frame?

8
9

THE COURT:

You know, Ms. Iafrate, again it's about

time for the noon break.

I don't want to interrupt you at an

inconvenient place, but could you look for a convenient place

11

to stop?

12

14

THE COURT:
stop.

16
17

morning.

22

THE COURT:

24
25

Your Honor, I have a housekeeping

Sure.

MS. IAFRATE:

Would you prefer that I do it after

lunch or before?

FR

23

matter.

ND

21

We'll be back at one o'clock.


MS. IAFRATE:

IE

20

So it might be a good time to

Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recess for the

18
19

All right.

OF

15

TH
E

now.

I'm moving to a different topic right

13

MS. IAFRATE:

FO

10

THE COURT:

No, we can do it before, but people can

leave.
MS. IAFRATE:

Yes.

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 120

THE COURT:

Among the people that can leave is you, Chief Trombi,


but we'll expect you to be back at one o'clock.

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

MR. McDONALD:

malfunctioning.

address this to.

Thanks.

THE COURT:

We will take care of it over lunch.

Thanks for raising it.

11

MR. McDONALD:

12

THE COURT:

13

Yes, ma'am?

14

MS. IAFRATE:

TH
E

events has been --

17

MS. IAFRATE:

18

THE COURT:

22

24
25

Oh, yes.

-- somebody in the back was trying to get

ND

the Court's attention and I was talking to -UNIDENTIFIED SPECTATOR:


THE COURT:

I have something to say.

Well, I'm sorry, ma'am.

You need to talk

to the plaintiffs' attorneys, and they can -- and they can


determine whether it's something that needs to be raised with

FR

23

Ms. Iafrate --

IE

21

Well, Your Honor, today's chronology of

Oh, I'm sorry.

OF

THE COURT:

20

Thanks.

Is anybody else having a problem?

16

19

Our video machine here is

The sheriff and I -- I don't know who to

10

15

Yes, sir.

FO

And then we'll take it up if they want.

GB
OW
.C
OM

the Court, okay?


UNIDENTIFIED SPECTATOR:

It's regarding the law and

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 121

the government.

It is a bunch of lies.

THE COURT:

Let me just say, I didn't understand what

GB
OW
.C
OM

was said because my hearing is not too good.

people in the gallery and in the audience may have strong

feelings about this case on both sides of the question.

can't restrain yourself, you will be escorted out.

I understand that

If you

I just want to make sure that everybody knows they're

welcome to be here, as they certainly are, but you're welcome

to be here under the orders and rules of the court.


Okay?

11

Ms. Iafrate?

12

MS. IAFRATE:

13

So plaintiffs' counsels' lineup is Chief Trombi,

Thank you, Your Honor.

TH
E

14

FO

10

Sergeant Palmer, and then Lieutenant Sousa.


THE COURT:

Yes.

16

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

15

I had co-counsel at the beginning of

today.

18

There are certain witnesses that I did not prepare for.

19

the third one today is one of those witnesses.

22

24
25

Did you cover that, Mr. Liddy?

MR. LIDDY:

I covered -- I think she's specifically

referring to that of Lieutenant Sousa.

The answer would be

yes, Your Honor.

FR

23

ND

21

And

THE COURT:

IE

20

There are certain depositions that I did not attend.

17

THE COURT:

Well, can you make a determination whether

or not you've got an ethical issue over lunch?

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 122

MR. LIDDY:

No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Can you make it by the afternoon?

MR. LIDDY:

No, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Can you brief Ms. Iafrate about the

GB
OW
.C
OM

deposition by that time?

MR. LIDDY:

I cannot, in my opinion, to the extent

that she can provide effective representation of counsel, Your

Honor.

THE COURT:

All right.

Which deposition -- when can

you make a determination of whether or not you can join this

11

case?

12

Mr. Liddy, and I want to respect your ethical sense, but I've

13

already indicated that from my sense the Ninth Circuit was

14

simply a matter of naming the appropriate jural entity and it

15

does not change the reality underlying this case.

16

opinion of what they've ruled.

17

own decision.

FO

10

OF

TH
E

You've already heard -- and I do want to respect you,

I realize you have to make your

When can you make that determination by?

MR. LIDDY:

After I have consulted with counsel and

18

That is my

with my supervisors at the County Attorney's Office, Your

20

Honor.

THE COURT:

Okay.

MR. LIDDY:

I was going to do that presently.

24

THE COURT:

If you would do that, I'd appreciate it.

25

Can I ask before you go to pursue what depositions did

22

And when will you be able to do

that?

FR

23

IE

21

ND

19

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 123

you cover?

2
3

MR. LIDDY:

I covered all the depositions except

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sergeant Palmer's and perhaps one other, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MS. WANG:

Ms. Wang?

Your Honor, just to clarify, Mr. Liddy was

present at many of the depositions but not all -- but was not

the attorney defending all of the depositions.

it is true that Ms. Iafrate was not present for at least one of

the depositions of Lieutenant Sousa.

10

THE COURT:

11

Under the circumstances, if you can make other

FO

All right.

I believe that

arrangements, I'm going to ask you to call somebody else other

13

than Lieutenant Sousa this afternoon.

14

MS. WANG:

TH
E

12

Is that possible?

Your Honor, it is possible, but I would

15

like to register that plaintiffs are prejudiced by this move by

16

the defendants.

17

certain order and --

OF

We had our case in chief ready to present in a

THE COURT:

Well, that -- this is what we'll do, then.

18

We'll take -- we'll take up until we get to Lieutenant Sousa,

20

and then if Mr. Liddy has not been able to resolve his ethical

21

concern ones way or another we'll break for the day, and in
that way Ms. Iafrate will, if nothing more, be able to read the
transcript of the deposition and be prepared to resume tomorrow

FR

23

IE

22

ND

19

24
25

morning.
Now, were there any other depositions, Ms. Iafrate,

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 124

where you were not present?

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

Which were they?

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

All right.

Could I provide that list to you after

lunch?

THE COURT:

That would be a good idea.

I want to say a few other things in terms of

FO

10
11

I would need to look at a list, Your

Honor.

Yes, Your Honor.

GB
OW
.C
OM

housekeeping.

12

I have kept track of the testimony, as I said I would.


I'll give you your time limits if you want.

14

that time limits are going to be necessary, because I do not

15

want -- I mean, I realize that there is a lot of interest in

16

this question and I don't want -- and I do want to have

17

appropriate contexts.

18

in this case.

19

and I think I know this case better than anybody in the room.

20

I don't need to have you repeat a whole bunch of stuff that I

21

already know.

OF

But you do not -- really, I'm the trier

ND

I am the trier-of-fact and I am the determiner,

I understand you might want to say some things

for clarification but I think you're going to benefit from


guidelines and from hourly guidelines.

FR

23

It's clear to me

IE

22

TH
E

13

24

So what we will do is before I set the guidelines we

25

will take Sergeant Palmer after lunch and then you don't have

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 125

anybody else?

Before we split to have Ms. Iafrate study the

depositions or make whatever determinations we can make about

Mr. Liddy, I'm going to go over the witnesses and when they're

going to come and how many are going to be joint witnesses and

we're going to set some time limits, and I'm going to apply the

time limits I've already had so that we don't just go on

forever.

Any questions about that?

MS. IAFRATE:
MS. WANG:

Your Honor, one thing just about what we do

FO

10

No.

GB
OW
.C
OM

11

when we come back from the lunch break.

12

Ms. Iafrate is prepared to go forward with the next witness in

13

order, which is Chief Sands.

14

Chief Sands in place of Lieutenant Sousa.


MS. IAFRATE:

16

MS. WANG:

17

THE COURT:

18

MS. WANG:

22

24
25

After Palmer.

OF

MS. WANG:

FR

23

I thought Palmer was next.


I'm sorry.

So you could do Palmer, then Sands.

Yes.
Without materially disrupting your case

presentation?

IE

21

THE COURT:

ND

19
20

We would be prepared to go with

TH
E

15

I don't know if

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor.


Any objection to that?

MS. IAFRATE:

with Mr. Sands.

Just that I will be prepared to proceed

No objection.

THE COURT:

All right.

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 126

Any objection by you, Mr. Como, if we proceed in that


way?

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.

And how about you, Mr. Walker?


No objection, Your Honor.
All right.

that out.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Then we'll see if we can work

In the meantime, over the lunch hour, exchange

exhibits, everybody give Mr. Walker and Mr. Como the exhibits
if they don't have them.

11

if you can.

12

going to argue to.

I'll just enter a chain of exhibits that nobody's

I mean, I realize that you have the right and it may

TH
E

13

See if you can arrive at stipulations

FO

10

be appropriate on some exhibits to make foundational

15

objections, but truthfully, nobody -- everybody knows -- for

16

example, I've already seen, everybody knows Chief Deputy

17

Sheridan's response to the monitor, and even though it came

18

through Chief Trombi, and I think it was appropriate, nobody

19

made objections to it.

20

They're just going to waste a lot of time.

The documents are

21

what they are.

If there's no

ND

We all know what they are.

dispute about them, let's get them in so we're not wasting this
time.

FR

23

There could have been objections.

IE

22

OF

14

Okay?

24

All right.

I'll see you at one o'clock.

25

(Proceedings recessed at 12:08 p.m.)

13:06:18

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 127

THE COURT:

Ms. Iafrate.

MS. IAFRATE:

Please be seated.

Thank you, Your Honor.

BY

MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

It's Exhibit 157.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Chief Trombi, I want to show you what's not in evidence.

THE CLERK:

THE WITNESS:

(Handing exhibit to witness).


Thank you.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

11

Q.

Do you know who Tim Casey is?

12

A.

Yes, I do.

13

Q.

Prior to 2013, did you have any conversations with Tim

14

Casey regarding the Melendres matter?

15

A.

None that I recall, no.

16

Q.

Did you ever receive e-mails from Tim Casey regarding the

17

Melendres matter?

18

A.

No, ma'am.

19

Q.

Did you ever receive the preliminary injunction from Tim

20

Casey?

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

13:07:05

13:07:20

IE

No, I did not.

Q.

Did you receive the preliminary injunction in 2011?

A.

No.

24

Q.

Did you receive it in 2012?

25

A.

No.

FR

23

13:06:53

FO

10

22

13:06:27

13:07:28

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 128

Q.

preliminary injunction?

A.

Sometime prior to my April 3rd, 2014, testimony.

Q.

Was there a process in place -- you were one in the chain

of command for HSU, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you discuss a preliminary injunction with Brian

Sands?

A.

No.

10

Q.

Were you involved in any training scenarios to implement

11

the preliminary injunction for HSU?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

Did you receive any e-mails from Lieutenant Sousa regarding

14

training scenarios?

15

A.

No, not that I'm aware of.

16

Q.

Did you receive any e-mails from Sergeant Palmer regarding

17

training scenarios?

18

A.

Not that I'm aware of.

19

Q.

Did you receive any training scenarios or information

20

regarding the preliminary injunction from Sergeant Trowbridge?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

FO

13:07:58

OF

13:08:24

ND

Q.

13:08:43

No, not that I'm aware of.


Were you involved in training HSU detectives following the

preliminary injunction?

FR

23

13:07:52

IE

22

Do you know when the first time was that you read the

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

No.
And I have to correct myself, I'm sorry.

The question

13:09:04

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 129

regarding training scenarios, I have recently seen a

deposition, an e-mail, that I am in that e-mail string as

having been a recipient of those training scenarios but have no

recollection of having received it.

Q.

HSU that you would expect you would be part of the discussion?

A.

Would be what?

Q.

Those training scenarios, if they were being generated for

HSU, as being in the chain of command, would you expect to be

GB
OW
.C
OM

Would that be something as -- in the chain of command of

part of that discussion?

11

A.

Not typically.

12

Q.

Why not?

13

A.

My involvement was more along the lines, as I testified

14

earlier, with administrative issues as opposed to operational

15

duties.

TH
E

MS. IAFRATE:

17

THE COURT:

18

Mr. Walker.

OF

16

21
22

THE COURT:

FR

23
24
25

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

I have no questions for this witness,

Your Honor.

IE

20

MR. COMO:

13:10:05

All right.

MR. WALKER:

ND

19

13:09:44

FO

10

13:09:25

13:10:21

Mr. Como.
I do have a few.

Can you please show the witness Exhibit 185, which is

not in evidence.
13:11:11

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 130

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COMO:

Q.

rec- --

Chief Trombi, take a look at Exhibit No. 185.

5
6

MS. IAFRATE:
clarification?

Do you

Your Honor, could I get some

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

Mr. Como indicated it was not in evidence.


I'm sorry.

BY MR. COMO:

Thank you.

Q.

Do you recognize this document?

11

A.

I've seen it before, yes.

12

Q.

Is this the e-mail that you mentioned a few minutes ago

13

that you saw at your deposition?

14

A.

Yes, sir, it is.

15

Q.

If you look at the page that ends 950, the first page of

16

Exhibit 185, do you see on the cc line, is that your name on

17

there?

18

A.

Yes, sir, it is.

19

Q.

Do you believe that -- is that your correct e-mail address

20

at that time?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

ND

OF

13:11:48

13:12:08

Yes, it would be.

IE
Q.

Do you have any reason to believe you did not receive this

e-mail on January 24, 2012?

FR

23

13:11:39

FO

10

22

13:11:27

Is 185 in evidence.

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

I do not.
MR. COMO:

Your Honor, I move for admission of

13:12:18

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 131

Exhibit 185.
THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

MS. IAFRATE:

No, Your Honor.

MR. POCHODA:

No.

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 185 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. COMO:

Q.

No objection.

Exhibit 185 is admitted.

Exhibit 185 provides four training scenarios that Mr. -- or

Sergeant Palmer put together.

11

Do you see that?


A.

Yes, I do.

13

Q.

So you did receive the training scenarios, according to

14

this e-mail, if this e-mail is accurate, you did receive those

15

back in January 2012, correct?

16

A.

17

recipient line, but I have no memory of having seen this before

18

my deposition the other day.

TH
E

12

Exhibit 189, which is not in evidence.


THE CLERK:

13:13:21

(Handing exhibit to witness).

BY MR. COMO:
Q.

Chief Trombi, do you recognize Exhibit 189?

24

A.

With the exception of the first part on page 1, it appears

25

to be the same as Exhibit 185.

FR

23

Can you please show the witness

IE

22

13:12:52

OF

S
ND

MR. COMO:

21

13:12:39

I must have received them based on the fact that I'm on the

19
20

13:12:25

FO

10

Any objection?

GB
OW
.C
OM

13:14:00

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 132

Q.

Okay.
MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

MS. IAFRATE:

No, Your Honor.

MR. POCHODA:

No objection.

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 189 is admitted into evidence.)

Objections?

No, Your Honor.

Exhibit 189 is admitted.

BY MR. COMO:

10

Q.

11

Tom Liddy.

The top part of Exhibit 189 is an e-mail from Mr. Casey to

12

Do you see that?


A.

Yes, sir, I do.

14

Q.

And if you follow the e-mail chain, it appears that

15

Mr. Casey was provided the training scenarios that were

16

forwarded to you on the same date of January 24, 2012?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

What does Mr. Casey's e-mail state?

19

A.

And you're referring to the top portion of --

20

Q.

21

A.

OF

13:14:46

13:15:04

In the body of it, it says, "FYI for your proposed revision

IE
Q.

13:14:36

ND
Yes.

and feedback, thanks.

FR

23

TH
E

13

22

13:14:23

FO

Your Honor, I move for Exhibit 189.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Tim."

Did you ever hear back from Tim Casey, or did you ever

24

speak with Tim Casey about the training scenarios?

25

A.

No, sir.

13:15:22

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 133

MR. COMO:

Can we please show the witness Exhibit 186

that's not in -- or is that admitted?

that's in evidence, or -- I believe that's not yet in evidence,

Exhibit 156.

BY MR. COMO:

Q.

Have you ever seen this e-mail chain?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Was this also shown to you at your deposition?

A.

Yes, sir, it was.

11

MR. COMO:

I believe

Your Honor, I move for admission of

Exhibit 156.

12

THE COURT:

13

MR. WALKER:

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

No objection, Your Honor.

16

MR. POCHODA:

17

THE COURT:

OF

TH
E

None, Your Honor.


May I just have one minute, Your Honor.
13:16:31

No objection.

I'm going to ask that people stand when

19

court reporter knows who's speaking.

ND

they indicate whether or not they have an objection so the

20

Exhibit 156 is admitted.

13:16:38

(Exhibit No. 156 is admitted into evidence.)

IE

21

BY MR. COMO:
Q.

FR

23

13:16:07

Any objection?

18

22

13:15:45

FO

10

Exhibit 156.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Chief Trombi, Exhibit 156 is an e-mail -- the first page of

24

that at the top is an e-mail dated March 27, 2012, from

25

Lieutenant Sousa to Sergeant Palmer.

13:16:53

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 134

Do you see that?


A.

Yes, sir, I do.

Q.

And also copied on the e-mail was Lieutenant Jakowinicz.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you see that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you know who was in charge of HSU at that point in time?

A.

It would have been Brian Sands and myself, I believe.

Q.

Okay.

SWAT by this point in time, do you know?

But beneath you, had Lieutenant Sousa moved off to

A.

I'm sorry, I don't know.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

Brett."

13

referring to?

14

A.

I would, yes.

15

Q.

States, quote:

16

emails, once Tim signs off on the scenarios, Brian can make

17

sure Chief Sands and Trombi are good with you getting with

18

training and putting out the training via E Learning."

The -- Exhibit 156, the very top e-mail states:

13:17:28

"Hi

TH
E

Would you assume that's Brett Palmer that he's

13:17:42

OF

"We still need to address the listed

Do you see that?

A.

21

Q.

Yes, I do.

13:17:58

What's the E Learning program?

IE

20

ND

19

A.

E Learning is a Sheriff's Office program that allows and

enables deputies to be able to, through the use of their

FR

23

FO

10

22

13:17:05

24

computers, go into specific assignments and to read or take

25

tests specific to whatever the issue is.

13:18:18

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 135

Q.

Is that available office-wide to all of the deputies?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So if the training scenarios had been published on --

through E Learning at the Sheriff's Office, that would have

been available throughout the entire office for all the

deputies, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

this e-mail to state that they're waiting for Mr. Casey to give

GB
OW
.C
OM

This -- this e-mail states that -- would you read

his input on the scenarios, and then it would then come back

11

and go to either you or Chief Sands?

12

A.

Perhaps both of us, yes.

13

Q.

Do you know whether Mr. Casey ever signed off on these

14

e-mails or -- I'm sorry -- signed off on the scenarios, the

15

training scenarios?

16

A.

I do not know.

17

Q.

It never came back to you to approve the training?

18

A.

No.

19

Q.

Now, your current position is chief of enforcement.

20

many deputies report to you?

21

A.

TH
E

Or perhaps both of you?

ND

OF

13:19:17

How
13:19:29

IE

All of them, which would be around 600; maybe more than

that at this time, maybe 700.


Q.

FR

23

13:18:53

FO

10

22

13:18:37

Is the training department still under the chief of

24

enforcement?

25

A.

Yes.

13:19:47

Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 136

Q.

So the training department is responsible for putting the

final training materials together on a presentation that goes

through E Learning, correct?

A.

I would believe so, yes.

Q.

How -- do you have any estimate of how many training

presentations are put together by the Sheriff's Office, say, in

the roughly 10 months that you've been chief of enforcement?

A.

Not a clue.

Q.

Dozens?

Numerous would be my best estimate.

Dozens.

Do you, as the chief of enforcement, personally review


all of those training presentations before they're put out?

12

A.

No.

13

Q.

That would be a level of detail far beyond what is expected

14

of your position, correct?

15

A.

16

Yes.

17

Q.

18

where it's decided that training needs to be done, what would

19

your role be in terms of seeing that training materials got put

20

together?

21

A.

13:20:19

13:20:33

OF

It would be -- let me answer your question, I'm sorry.

ND

When you're a chief of enforcement and a topic comes up

13:20:53

IE

I would communicate directly to the chief of training, who

would then assemble that training and ensure that his training
personnel build the curriculum and then have it placed on the

FR

23

TH
E

11

22

13:20:00

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

E Learning system.

25

Q.

And is it your practice, once you do so, that you expect

13:21:12

Trombi-Redirect CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 137

them to complete that, prepare the training materials, and put

it out?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You don't feel the need to continually follow up to see

whether they're doing their job?

A.

No.

7
8

MR. COMO:

Thank you.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Redirect, Mr. Pochoda?

11

MR. POCHODA:

12

Very brief.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. POCHODA:

14

Q.

15

large-scale law enforcement/MCSO operation on October of 2013

16

in the West Valley, is that correct?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And that was not the first large-scale operation that you

19

had been involved in the planning for, was it?

20

A.

21

Q.

Chief Trombi, you were involved in the training of a

ND

OF

13:21:44

It may have been.

13:21:56

IE

And that was -- that was an operational issue that took

place, an operational patrol and saturation that took place in


October 2013, is that right?

FR

23

TH
E

13

22

13:21:29

FO

10

13:21:23

That's all the questions I

have.

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

The 18th and 19th, yes, sir.

25

Q.

And we discussed before matters that were brought to you by

13:22:25

Trombi-Redirect CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 138

Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Jakowinicz, and Sergeant

Trowbridge concerning Deputy Armendariz and his actions within

the HSU.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you recall that?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And would you consider that a substantive issue for the

HSU, whether someone should remain at the HSU or be removed

because of improper behaviors at the HSU?

Is that what your definition of "administrative" is?


A.

In part, yes.

11

Q.

So when you answered the questions of counsel that you had

12

administrative chores, you include in that decisions about

13

whether the HSU deputies had acted properly or improperly on an

14

occasion and whether they should be kept in HSU, is that

15

correct?

16

A.

In that instance, yes.

17

Q.

And you didn't know much about the administrative details

18

of HSU, did you?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

example, if individual deputies at HSU kept binders for their

TH
E

OF

13:23:14

Your question?

ND

And I'm sorry, sir.

13:23:31

IE

Well, you testified before that you didn't know, for

tapes, is that correct?


A.

That is correct.

24

Q.

And you didn't know what procedures they used for logging

25

in evidence, is that correct?

FR

23

13:23:01

FO

10

22

13:22:42

13:23:42

Trombi-Redirect CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 139

A.

Correct.

Q.

What administrative areas did you know anything about while

you were the supervisor at HSU?

A.

ensuring that things were signed that way, off-duty work

permits that had to be signed up the chain of command.

trying to think of other instances.

Q.

Sure.

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

12

I'm

May the witness finish his answer?

If you weren't finished, please do finish

your answer.
THE WITNESS:

14

actually, I think I had completed my answer, but thank you.

15

BY MR. POCHODA:

16

Q.

17

with a problem at HSU about substance that you're not going to

18

handle it because you only do administrative matters, did you?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

Lieutenant Sousa, don't bring up that substantive area to me

TH
E

details regarding the signing of off-duty work permits --

13:24:36

OF

But you did not tell these deputies when they came to you

ND

At times I would defer to Chief Sands.


13:24:58

IE

For example, you didn't let Sergeant Trowbridge or

about how someone operated because I only handle administrative


chores, did you?

FR

23

13:24:18

So assignments regarding -- or rather

13

22

13:23:59

FO

10
11

So with regards to purchase order requirements,

Did you -- you did --

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

No, sir.

25

Q.

And generally a deputy at HSU could come to you with any

13:25:08

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

problem involving an HSU operation.

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And they could also go to Chief Sands if they preferred?

A.

Correct.

MR. POCHODA:

THE COURT:

Thank you.

Is that fair to say?

GB
OW
.C
OM

140

No further questions.

You know, Chief, I am going to try to

refrain from asking questions, but I do have a few questions

for you, just 'cause I'm not sure, and I'm going to ask them

now because I'm going to allow Mr. Pochoda to ask any

follow-ups that I have, and then I'm going to allow, again, the

11

attorneys to do their follow-up, and then at least for this

12

time you may be through, subject to recall.


EXAMINATION

TH
E

13
14

BY THE COURT:

15

Q.

16

conversation with Deputy Armendariz in which you said you

17

believed him?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Can I ask you, sir, you said you were with MCSO, did you

20

say 26 years?

21

A.

13:25:54

ND

OF

Do you remember when you were talking about your

13:26:11

24, sir.

IE
Q.

FR

23

13:25:40

FO

10

22

13:25:20

24.

And you were a deputy for a year and a half on Patrol?

24

A.

Approximately, maybe a little longer.

25

Q.

And then you went to the public information office?

13:26:18

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

No, sir.

Q.

Where did you go?

A.

From Patrol I went to the civil division.

Q.

For how long?

A.

I believe two years.

Q.

Were you a deputy there as well?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And then did you go to the PIO?

A.

No, sir.

10

Q.

Trace me through, if you will.

11

A.

Okay.

12

was really what we called Squad 5, and that was as a Patrol

13

deputy as well.

FO

16

I'm sorry, as a deputy as well.

After search --

13:26:55

OF

and rescue as a search and rescue coordinator.

17

After search and rescue -- excuse me -- I left and


went to public information officer for approximately four

19

and a half years.

20

lieutenant while a public information officer, and left the

21

public information officer to my next Patrol assignment as a

I made the ranks of sergeant and then

IE

ND

18

lieutenant, I think in 2002, I believe.

13:27:17

And so then as a

lieutenant I was in Patrol for a couple years until I was

FR

23

13:26:36

From there I ended up in Enforcement Support in search

15

22

13:26:28

So after I left civil I went to Lake Patrol, which

TH
E

14

GB
OW
.C
OM

141

24

reassigned to the SWAT division in 2004.

25

Q.

And were you the commander or the deputy commander at SWAT?

13:27:43

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

I was the commander.

Q.

Is a commander different than a captain, or --

A.

No, sir.

Q.

A commander and a captain are the same thing?

A.

Yes.

Q.

At least as they pertain to SWAT?

A.

As it pertains to the Sheriff's Office.

rank of commander.

deputy chief, and so forth.

GB
OW
.C
OM

142

We don't have the

11

and then chief?

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

In any of those promotions did you ever receive any

14

training about how to supervise deputies?

15

A.

No, sir.

16

Q.

So you never received any training about how you might deal

17

with somebody who was presenting the problems that Deputy

18

Armendariz was presenting?

19

A.

Correct.

20

Q.

21

appropriate to refer someone under your command for an Internal

13:28:08

TH
E

OF

13:28:21

13:28:37

IE

Did you ever have any training about when it might be

Affairs investigation?
A.

No, sir.

24

Q.

So you've never had such training?

25

A.

Correct.

FR

23

And so now you went from commander to being deputy chief

FO

Q.

ND

We only have sergeant, lieutenant, captain,

10

22

13:27:56

13:28:54

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

143

Q.

Affairs for an investigation?

A.

I absolutely have.

Q.

Have you ever referred anyone under your command for an

Internal Affairs investigation?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you do that at HSU?

supervised HSU?

A.

I don't recall.

10

Q.

That's fair enough.

11

don't have any recollection of it?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

When you did refer someone for Internal Affairs

14

investigation it was just based on your own assessment of how

15

egregious the conduct was that you became aware of?

16

A.

17

inquiry that was a fact-finding mission that resulted in

18

something that was egregious enough that should go to Internal

19

Affairs.

20

Q.

21

one that you would have initiated in your role as a supervisor?

Did you do that when you

I -- I don't know if I did or didn't.

13:29:28

TH
E

FO

But at least as you're here today, you

13:29:39

ND

OF

Which was usually predicated on some sort of administrative

A.

All right.

And the administrative inquiry would have been

13:29:57

They typically -- if it's a deputy, it's typically the

immediate supervisor who would then initiate the administrative

FR

23

13:29:10

IE

22

Have you ever referred anyone within the MCSO to Internal

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

report.

25

Q.

All right.

So it wouldn't necessarily have been you.

It

13:30:17

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

144

might have been their immediate supervisor, but there immediate

supervisor would bring you into the loop, so to speak?

A.

At some point, yes.

Q.

And at some point you, as the supervising officer, would

make the determination, based on, I guess, your own feel and

experience, whether you thought it should be referred Internal

Affairs?

A.

That's -- yes.

Q.

Because I think I'm not misstating, you've never had any

GB
OW
.C
OM

training about when something should be referred to Internal

11

Affairs and when it shouldn't be?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

I'm a little bit hazy, and you'll forgive me, but you were

14

having Deputy Armendariz record, video record all of his stops

15

at some point.

16

But Deputy Armendariz at some point was directed to videotape

17

all of his stops.

18

A.

19

made aware or saw the first video, then obviously I was aware

20

of the fact that he was in fact videotaping those things.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

13:30:59

Is that your understanding?

ND

I don't know if he was directed to do so, but once I was

All right.

13:31:27

When you saw the first video, were you made

aware of whether or not that was a video that was made by


Deputy Armendariz himself, or whether he was directed -- or

FR

23

And when I say "you," I guess I don't mean you.

IE

22

13:30:42

FO

10

13:30:30

24

whether or not that video came from a dash cam placed in his

25

MCSO vehicle?

13:31:52

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

A.

first one I saw I believe included a dash cam and eyeglasses

that had camera capabilities.

Q.

reviewed, I think the one -- I think that was the one involving

the woman that you said you didn't see any problem with?

A.

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Q.

You saw videotapes of -- that resulted from the dash cam in

Deputy Armendariz's vehicle and from his eyeglasses?

All right.

My knowledge of the very

GB
OW
.C
OM

The answer, sir, would be both.

145

And so even in that very first video that you

A.

And, I'm sorry, in the video it -- in his view, in Deputy

11

Armendariz's view with the eyeglass camera, I could see a dash

12

mounted camera as well.

13

actually came from the dash camera.

TH
E

So I don't know if any of the video

In other words, I don't think he utilized the dash

15

camera for that traffic stop, that it was, rather, from his

16

eyeglass camera.

17

Q.

18

the second video, whether or not the video that you viewed,

19

whether it was one or both, was a video that was prepared at

20

the direction of MCSO and with MCSO equipment, or whether it

21

was Deputy Armendariz's personal equipment?

IE

ND

Did you ascertain when you reviewed that first video, or

A.

13:33:12

I don't remember if I inquired as to whether it was

personally owned or office-issued.

FR

23

13:32:50

OF

14

22

13:32:31

FO

10

13:32:13

My recollection is is that

24

the eyeglass cameras were personally owned, from what I recall.

25

Q.

I understand that you have that understanding now.

Do you

13:33:46

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

know when you got that understanding?

A.

I would say at the time that I viewed it.

Q.

All right.

viewed was an eyeglass view?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And you don't recall whether or not there was also a

dashboard camera view?

A.

was utilized.

GB
OW
.C
OM

So you believe that the very first video you

All right.

And did you have any idea whether the dashboard

11

camera belonged to MCSO or whether it belonged to Deputy

12

Armendariz?

13

A.

I have no idea.

14

Q.

The second video that you viewed, eyeglass view?

15

view?

16

A.

17

not a hundred percent certain.

18

Q.

19

viewed the second video whether or not Deputy Armendariz was

20

videotaping his own stops?

21

A.

13:34:15

Both?

TH
E

FO

Q.

Dashboard

Do you remember?

OF

I don't remember.

13:34:30

I want to say it was a dash cam, but I'm

ND

Did you have an -- did you have any idea by the time you

13:34:54

I would say yes.

IE
Q.

You indicated that prior to -- to talking -- prior to

receiving the May 14th instruction from Chief Deputy Sheridan,

FR

23

13:34:03

There was a dashboard camera there, but I don't think it

10

22

146

24

you had been in the room reviewing additional behavior, at

25

least two stops by Deputy Armendariz, I think you indicated the

13:35:19

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

147

first of which you would -- you were shocked and surprised by.

Or I don't -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I

gathered that you thought it was a very unacceptable stop.

A.

the other was a domestic violence situation.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And not to correct Your Honor, one was a traffic stop and

Correct.

Thank you.

That was your testimony.

The first one I think you said was the traffic stop?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And that was when there was a woman driving and a man in

the passenger seat.

11

video footage.

12

I think that I may have seen that same

I think maybe it was played for me on May 14th.

That was the stop that you thought was problematic?


A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

Do you recall whether that was eyeglass or dash cam?

15

A.

I recall that as being eyeglass.

16

Q.

All right.

17

that video would have been Deputy Armendariz's personal video,

18

correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

Trowbridge, Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Jakowinicz, that

TH
E

13

13:36:07

OF

And so you would have known at that time that

ND

Yes, I believe so.


13:36:26

IE

Were you ever informed by, I don't know, Sergeant

Sergeant Armendariz was having all of his stops videotaped in


order to monitor, within the division, his stops and his

FR

23

13:35:48

FO

10

22

13:35:39

24

behavior?

25

A.

I recall having had a conversation with -- and I'm sorry, I

13:37:16

Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

148

don't know if it was Lieutenant Jakowinicz or Lieutenant

Sousa -- that because he had been receiving complaints, that he

was recording his traffic stops to prove or disprove the

allegations that were being leveled against him.

Q.

That he personally was doing that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you have any explanation for why there was a dash cam in

Deputy Armendariz's -- or at least one of the vehicles that he

was using?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

No, sir, I do not.

11

Q.

Do you have any knowledge whether HSU, as a practice, had

12

its officers videotape their stops?

13

A.

At some point they began utilizing cameras for their work.

14

Q.

Do you recall what point that was?

15

A.

I'm sorry, I don't.

16

Q.

Was it 2010?

17

A.

I apologize, Your Honor.

18

have a time reference.

19

Q.

20

in connection with this underlying lawsuit or any other time,

21

whether you had any documents, videos, or anything else that

TH
E

OF

It's been so long, I really don't

ND

I think if I understood correctly, nobody ever asked you,


13:38:44

might be responsive to requests received from the plaintiffs in


this lawsuit?

FR

23

13:38:23

IE

22

13:37:53

FO

10

13:37:40

24

A.

Correct.

25

Q.

Did you ever receive such a request?

13:38:58

A.

Only recently.

Q.

As in the last six months?

A.

Yes, sir.

4
5

THE COURT:

Thank you.

THE WITNESS:

THE COURT:

Did you have any additional questions in

MR. POCHODA:

10

Very briefly, Your Honor.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

11

BY MR. POCHODA:

12

Q.

13

did provide to all HSU deputies a Scorpion body or glass cams

14

starting in 2009, is that correct?

15

A.

Yes, sir.

16

Q.

And that is your understanding, is that right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And then those were turned in when people left HSU, is that

19

correct?

20

A.

21

they would have taken them to their next assignment.

TH
E

We discussed at your deposition that at some point the MCSO

OF

13:39:32

ND

If you know.

I believe they would have turned them in.

I don't know if

13:39:42

I don't

believe they would, is what I'm saying.


Q.

FR

23

13:39:19

IE

22

13:39:10

Thank you, Your Honor.

light of those questions?

Thank

FO

Those are my questions.

you very much.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Trombi-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 149

And you indicated in response to the judge that you

24

yourself have not had any training in when matters should be

25

referred to IA or anyone else at the MCSO, is that correct?

13:40:00

Trombi-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 150

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Are there, whether it's the IA or other divisions or units

within the MCSO that would have better been able to handle

issues of behavioral problems or perhaps emotional problems?

Has that ever come up in your experience at the MCSO better

than commander without any training?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What units are those?

A.

That would be the what was formerly Internal Affairs

GB
OW
.C
OM

investigation and now Professional Standards Bureau.

11

Q.

12

the past referred matters to the IA, generally after someone --

13

this was not necessarily just you, because you did not recall

14

that -- someone under your command had found some cause of

15

concern for a particular deputy, is that correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

And in this case, in our discussion of Deputy Armendariz,

18

in fact, a number of people did find cause of concern for the

19

practices and procedures, and perhaps even emotional state of

20

Deputy Armendariz, is that correct?

21

A.

13:40:53

OF

TH
E

And you indicated that you had at some points in

ND

Q.

13:41:10

Yes.

And yet despite that, based on the fact that he said to

you, "I'm going to do better now," you decided to reinstate

FR

23

Correct.

IE

22

13:40:34

FO

10

13:40:21

24

him, is that correct?

25

A.

I decided to put him back on the road with HSU, yes.

13:41:26

Trombi-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 151

Q.

And again, why did you not refer him at that point to IA,

who were better equipped to see if some additional

interventions were necessary?

A.

those investigations that were conducted were found -- or were

unfounded and didn't occur, or they -- they were unfounded, so

there was no -- there was nothing so egregious that it would

have been forwarded to Internal Affairs.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Because to my knowledge, those administrative inquiries or

11

anything real?

12

A.

13

enforcement and military that transferring an individual who

14

has an issue doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't fix it.

15

would expect that the commanders and the supervisors address

16

those issues and fix it.

17

Q.

18

whatever unit you're in.

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

could indeed spread the problem, isn't that right?

24
25

Is that your point?

OF

TH
E

Sir, it's my experience in over 31 years between law

I
13:42:21

But there are some issues that require intervention

Would you agree with that?

And the fact of transferring a problem to another unit just

IE
A.

FR

23

13:42:03

FO

recommendation that he be transferred from HSU was based on

ND

You didn't think that Lieutenant Jakowinicz's strong

10

22

13:41:41

Yes.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:

No further questions.

Ms. Iafrate.

13:42:33

Trombi-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 152

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

tape-record his traffic stops?

A.

No.

Q.

So when the judge was referring to "you," he didn't mean

you, Chief Trombi; he was referring to someone in the office?

A.

to put words in his mouth, either.

Chief, did you ever order or direct Deputy Armendariz to

I don't know what the judge was referring to.

THE COURT:

Thank you.

BY

12

MS. IAFRATE:

I don't want

Q.

14

Armendariz to record his traffic stops?

15

A.

16

discussed, yes.

17

Q.

What year?

18

A.

And I'm sorry, not a clue.

19

Q.

Was there any sort of policy in HSU regarding recording

20

traffic stops?

21

A.

13:43:21

ND

OF

I do have a recollection of that, that being said or

13:43:40

IE

I believe their standard operating procedure manual

addressed the use of the Scorpion body camera.


Q.

FR

23

13:43:15

Were you aware that someone at MCSO directed Deputy

TH
E

13

22

13:42:58

FO

10
11

GB
OW
.C
OM

Were you involved in drafting that standard operating

24

procedure?

25

A.

No.

13:43:57

Trombi-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 153

Q.

There's been -- have you ever worked in PSB or IA?

A.

I have not.

Q.

There's been some conversation from Mr. Pochoda regarding

reinstating Deputy Armendariz.

reinstatement, was it?

A.

Not reinstatement, no.

Q.

What was your decision regarding Deputy Armendariz?

A.

My decision was to allow him to remain operating within

Human Smuggling Unit.

GB
OW
.C
OM

That wasn't your decision,

Q.

11

determination was because the memos from Lieutenant Jakowinicz

12

and the others talked about some complaints that were deemed

13

unfounded, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Did you consider at least the complaints themselves when

16

you were making a determination of how to handle Deputy

17

Armendariz?

18

A.

19

to be able to definitively say.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

13:44:44

ND

I may have, but I don't recall what those allegations were

Well, you know that he had several complaints, correct?

13:44:59

Yes.

Q.

And that was one of the things that you and he discussed?

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And following your discussion with him as someone that was

25

in the chain of command, you determined to return him to HSU,

FR

23

13:44:26

IE

22

One of the reasons that you said that you made that

FO

10

13:44:14

13:45:11

Trombi-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 154

correct?

A.

That is correct.

Q.

Did you get permission from Sheriff Arpaio to do that?

A.

No.

Q.

Did you get permission from Chief Deputy Sheridan to do

that?

A.

No, ma'am.

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

11

MR. WALKER:

12

THE COURT:
sir.

All right.

14

Next witness.

15

MS. WANG:

16

THE CLERK:

24
25

Brett Palmer.

B-r-e-t-t, P-a-l-m-e-r.

ND

Raise your right hand.

(Brett Palmer was duly sworn as a witness.)


(Pause in proceedings.)

FR

23

THE CLERK:

IE

22

13:45:40

Please state your full name for the record

THE WITNESS:

19

21

Thank you,

and spell your first and last name.

18

20

You may step down.

Your Honor, plaintiffs call Brett Palmer.

OF

17

13:45:30

No questions at this time, Your Honor.

TH
E

13

Nothing, Your Honor.

FO

MR. COMO:

13:45:21

Nothing further.

Thank you.

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:

May I proceed, Your Honor?


You may.

13:46:44

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 155

BRETT PALMER,
having been first duly sworn by the Clerk to tell the truth,

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as

follows:

GB
OW
.C
OM

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WANG:

Q.

Good afternoon, Sergeant Palmer.

A.

Good afternoon.

Q.

Are you employed by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?

10

A.

I am.

11

Q.

What's your current assignment?

12

A.

I am the District 3 detective supervisor.

13

Q.

Between April of 2008 and May of 2012, what was -- were you

14

also at MCSO?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And what was your assignment then?

17

A.

I was the supervisor on one of the HSU interdiction street

18

teams.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND

Were there two such street teams?


There were, yes.

13:47:37

And who was your direct commander while you were at HSU?

A.

Lieutenant Joe Sousa.

Q.

And who was above him in the chain of command?

24

A.

Chief Dave Trombi and Chief Brian Sands.

25

Q.

Thank you.

FR

23

13:47:26

IE

22

13:47:15

FO

13:47:50

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 156

Sergeant, on December 23rd of 2011 were you a sergeant


at HSU?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you become aware that this federal district court

issued a preliminary injunction order on December 23rd, 2011?

A.

Yes.

Q.

When did you become aware of it?

A.

I don't recall specifically when, but it was pretty

immediate following the judge's decision.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Q.

Would it have been the same day or perhaps the day after?

11

A.

It could have been.

12

Q.

In that time range?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And how did you learn about the preliminary injunction

15

order?

16

A.

17

an e-mail.

18

disseminated to the HSU staff via Lieutenant Sousa.

19

Q.

20

command?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

I recall reading the order.

I believe I saw

I believe it was

ND

So you heard about it through your chain of


13:48:45

Yes.

IE

22

13:48:25

I don't have a clear recollection of how.

All right.

Q.

You did not learn about it through the news, for example?

A.

No.

24

Q.

All right.

25

injunction order yourself, is that correct?

FR

23

13:48:16

FO

10

13:48:03

Sir, you said that you read the preliminary


13:48:52

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 157

A.

Yes.

Q.

Based on your reading, did you think that MCSO needed to

take any action to implement that preliminary injunction order?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What did you think needed to happen?

A.

I personally felt that we should have been disseminating

information and training immediately through the chain of

command down to all the deputies in the districts.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And did you believe that MCSO-wide, deputies should be

informed of the Court's preliminary injunction order?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

You did not think that the preliminary injunction order

13

affected only HSU, is that right?

14

A.

No, ma'am, that's correct.

15

Q.

You believed that deputies assigned to the Patrol division

16

also needed to know about the order, is that right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Now, after you learned of the preliminary injunction order,

19

did you receive any instructions to prepare any materials for

20

such a training on the order?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

ND

OF

13:49:30

13:49:47

Yes, I believe I did.

IE
Q.

FR

23

13:49:21

FO

10

22

13:49:03

All right.
MS. WANG:

I'd like to show the witness an exhibit

that is already admitted, Exhibit 189.


THE COURT:

You may do so.

13:50:03

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 158

MS. WANG:

And if we could also have that published on

the screens.

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

If you put it up, we'll publish it.

MS. WANG:

And I'd like to go to the last page of Exhibit 189.

Second-to-last page, please.

Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

document, do you recognize that?

Okay, Sergeant.

Looking at the earliest e-mail on this

A.

Yes, ma'am.

11

Q.

Is that the direction that you just referred to in your

12

testimony?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

All right.

15

next e-mail in the chain.

TH
E

I'd like to scroll up to the beginning of the


It will be on a previous page.

Previous page, please.

17

And one more.

18

Do you see at the very bottom of this page there

There you go.

appears that there's an e-mail from you to Lieutenant Sousa

20

dated January 19, 2012?

ND

19

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

Okay.

FR
25

13:51:22

Do you see that?

IE

21

24

13:50:58

OF

16

23

13:50:47

FO

10

22

13:50:24

And why don't we turn to the following page.


And could I have -- does the witness have a paper copy

of Exhibit 189?

Why don't you refer to that, sir.

13:51:34

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 159

Taking a look at that e-mail that you sent to


Lieutenant Sousa, can you describe what that is?

A.

provide to Lieutenant Sousa to submit up the chain of command

for implementation, training implementation across the whole of

the office.

Q.

And did you personally draft this material?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you consult with anyone else in drafting that e-mail?

10

A.

I don't have any direct recollection of it, but I could

11

have consulted with Sergeant Trowbridge, who was my

12

co-supervising partner at the time.

13

Q.

14

draft was based on your reading of the preliminary injunction

15

order?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Was it based on any other input?

18

A.

No, ma'am, not to my recollection.

19

Q.

Okay.

20

heading Scenario 1 and highlight that.

13:52:02

FO

13:52:16

13:52:34

OF

TH
E

Is it fair to say that your understanding resulting in your

ND

Let's scroll down to the paragraph that has the


13:52:45

Sir, why don't you take a moment just to reread that.

Let me know when you're ready.


A.

I'm ready.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

the preliminary injunction order required that if an MCSO

FR

23

They are a list of training scenarios that I was asked to

IE

21
22

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sergeant, is it fair to say that you understood that


13:53:10

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 160

deputy had only suspicion that an individual was an

undocumented immigrant, but no probable cause to believe that

that person had committed a crime, that the order required that

person to be released?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And that's what you drafted the training scenario to

reflect, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And would that information have constituted a change from

GB
OW
.C
OM

how MCSO had previously been working?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And as you said before, you believed it was necessary to

13

train agency-wide on this new learning, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Sir, sometime prior to the Court's order of December 23rd,

16

2011, were you familiar with something called the LEAR protocol

17

or the LEAR policy?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

That had been in effect for some years before December of

20

2011, correct?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

13:54:17

Yes.

Q.

Can you briefly describe what that policy required.

A.

The LEAR policy was named after Immigration Customs

FR

23

13:53:58

IE

22

13:53:43

FO

10

13:53:27

24

Enforcement's LEAR unit, which stood for Law Enforcement Agency

25

Response.

It was a policy of the Sheriff's Office that

13:54:33

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 161

directed deputies in the field how to handle situations like

this one prior to the December 23rd, 2011, court order, when

they came across a person that they had reasonable suspicion to

believe was in the country illegally, but absent any other

criminal factors for the state law.

Q.

situation?

A.

at their detention removal office, or CBP, Customs and Border

GB
OW
.C
OM

And what did the policy require deputies to do in that

Contact -- detain the individual, contact an ICE official

Patrol, to have them ascertain further if the person was in

11

fact an illegal person in the United States, and then at the

12

direction of the CBP officer or the ICE agent, transport that

13

person to into their custody.

14

Q.

15

to maintain detention of the person pending the determination

16

of immigration status from the federal agency, is that correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Sir, were all MCSO deputies in the Patrol Division trained

19

on the LEAR policy?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

And to be clear, the LEAR policy required the MCSO deputy

ND

OF

13:55:26

Yes.

13:55:42

IE

And indeed, did MCSO have a specific radio code that

deputies used to call in when they encountered someone


suspected of being illegally in the United States?

FR

23

13:55:09

FO

10

22

13:54:52

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

What was that?

13:55:59

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 162

A.

712I as in "Ida."

Q.

And so if a deputy encountered someone that he or she

suspected of being an undocumented immigrant -- an undocumented

immigrant, they would call dispatch and announce that radio

code, is that correct?

A.

Yes, absent other criminal factors.

Q.

All right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Now, did you believe that the preliminary injunction

order prohibited the conduct that had been required under the
LEAR policy?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

I believe the words you used were that it represented a

13

180-degree shift, is that right?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And is that one of the reasons why you believed that

16

training immediately needed to be put out to implement the

17

Court's preliminary injunction order?

18

A.

TH
E

ND

MS. WANG:

In fact, let's call up Exhibit 156, which

is in evidence already.

21

the witness.

FR

23

IE

20

22

24
25

13:56:42

OF

Yes.

19

13:56:31

FO

10

13:56:14

THE CLERK:
MS. WANG:

go back to 189.

And if I could have a paper copy for

13:56:58

(Handing exhibit to witness).


I apologize.

We can actually use -- let's

My apologies.

Going back again to the third-from-the-last page,

13:57:31

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 163

let's highlight the first paragraph after "Lieutenant Sousa."

Up at the top, please.

Thank you.

GB
OW
.C
OM

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

sentence in the paragraph that follows Lieutenant Sousa.

wrote:

Deputies as the focus."

So, Sergeant Palmer, I'll call your attention to the last

What did you mean by that?


A.

I meant that it was for the Patrol deputies who had been

trained in the LEAR policy, the LEAR protocol, to provide them

11

with instruction on how this 180-degree shift would now affect

12

them in the field.

13

Q.

And that would include deputies outside of HSU, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

All right.

TH
E

13:58:26

I also want to highlight the third line below that,


under Training Directive.

You wrote:

"It is important the

18

Deputies and the Supervisors understand the scope to which they

19

are empowered to act in these scenarios, as limits have

20

recently been set by Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court

21

case."

22

ND

17

IE

OF

16

13:58:11

FO

10

13:58:46

Did you see that?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

24

Q.

Did you believe that to be true upon your reading of the

25

preliminary injunction order?

FR

23

13:57:58

"Also note, I created these scenarios with Patrol

8
9

You

13:58:54

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 164

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, sir -- we can take that down.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sergeant, after you drafted these training materials,

did you continue to communicate with Lieutenant Sousa about the

proposed materials?

A.

Yes.

MS. WANG:

All right.

Now let's call up Exhibit 156,

and we'll highlight just the top e-mail in this.

BY MS. WANG:
Q.

Do you recognize that e-mail dated March 27th

11

from Joe Sousa to Brett Palmer?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

All right.

14

after drafting the training materials with Lieutenant Sousa?

15

A.

Yes, ma'am.

16

Q.

So is it fair to say that by March 27th, 2012, your

17

proposed training had not been implemented?

18

A.

That's correct.

19

Q.

Now, do you have an understanding about what steps needed

20

to be taken in order to implement your proposed training

21

materials at MCSO?

13:59:44

14:00:08

IE

ND

OF

TH
E

And was this one of the communications you had

A.

Yes.

Q.

What were those steps that needed to happen?

24

A.

A Briefing Board or other written dissemination, and a

25

comprehensive training curriculum, either through E Learning or

FR

23

13:59:28

FO

10

22

Okay, sir.

13:59:08

14:00:23

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 165

in-house at our training center.

Q.

training materials agency-wide on his own?

A.

No.

Q.

What would he have needed to do in order to make that

happen?

A.

our chain above us.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Could Lieutenant Sousa have decided to put out your

Forward it through the chain of command to the chiefs in

Okay.

Did you also believe that an attorney needed to

review your training scenarios?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Did you have an idea of which attorney should do that?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Who was that?

15

A.

Mr. Tim Casey.

16

Q.

Okay.

17

been involved in putting out this proposed training?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

How would they have been involved?

20

A.

21

curriculum.

TH
E

14:00:57

ND

OF

And would the training division of MCSO also have

They would have been required to create the training

14:01:08

IE
Q.

Sir, is it true that no version of your proposed training

on the preliminary injunction order ever took place at MCSO?

FR

23

14:00:49

FO

10

22

14:00:36

24

A.

I don't know that that's true, no.

25

Q.

Okay.

Well, did you -- let me go back to this.

14:01:28

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 166

You transferred out of HSU in April of 2012, correct?

A.

May of 2012, ma'am.

Q.

May of 2012.

GB
OW
.C
OM

By the point that you transferred out of HSU, had any

training on the judge's preliminary injunction order gone out

MCSO-wide?

A.

Not to my recollection.

Q.

After you transferred out of HSU and before the judge --

let me go back.

Were you familiar with the judge's May 2013 trial

11

ruling in this case?

12

A.

I believe so, yes, ma'am.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

May of 2012 and May of 2013, were you aware of any MCSO-wide

15

training on the judge's preliminary injunction order?

16

A.

17

not.

18

that I went through sometime later -- I believe it was Sergeant

19

Allen Goodman who actually put it on the training -- referenced

20

scenarios similar to these or identical, but I don't know when

21

that occurred.

TH
E

14:02:16

OF

I have a recollection personally of an E Learning course

ND

Q.

Okay.

14:02:37

Do you know if that training reflected information

about racial profiling as well?

FR

23

Between the time that you transferred out of HSU in

I don't know, ma'am, if it occurred in that time frame or

IE

22

14:01:56

FO

10

14:01:45

24

A.

I don't recall.

25

Q.

All right.

To your knowledge, was there ever a training

14:02:47

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 167

that went out MCSO-wide that was specific to the judge's

December 23rd, 2011, preliminary injunction order?

A.

Not that I can recall sitting here today, ma'am.

Q.

And to your knowledge, was there any notice that the

judge's preliminary injunction order had issued that went out

through a Briefing Board?

A.

Not to my recollection as I sit here today, no, ma'am.

Q.

Sir, you were directly involved in an effort to put out

some training on the judge's preliminary injunction order,

GB
OW
.C
OM

correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Based on your direct involvement in that process, do you

13

have an opinion about why the training did not take place as

14

you drafted it?

15

A.

An opinion?

16

Q.

Yes, sir.

17

A.

Yes, ma'am.

18

Q.

Can you please tell us what that is.

TH
E

OF

14:03:41

MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor.

Foundation,

ND

19

speculation, and calls for opinion testimony from this lay

21

witness.

24
25

THE COURT:

14:03:49

I am going to require you to lay more

foundation before I'm going to allow an opinion, Ms. Wang.

FR

23

IE

20

22

14:03:30

FO

10

14:03:14

MS. WANG:

BY MS. WANG:

Yes, Your Honor.


14:04:00

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 168

Q.

Sergeant, you drafted some training materials on the

judge's preliminary injunction order, is that right?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

You discussed your proposed training with your lieutenant,

Lieutenant Sousa?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Are you aware of conversations that he had with his chain

of command about this training, proposed training?

A.

Not directly aware, no, ma'am.

10

Q.

Okay.

11

refer to your paper copy, sir.

GB
OW
.C
OM

FO

Let's go back and look at Exhibit 189.

12

And you can

Let's go to the third page of the PDF file.

14

that e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to Tim Casey, dated January

15

24th, 2012.

TH
E

highlight -- sorry, the previous page.

Let's highlight -- yes,

Do you see that, Sergeant?

17

A.

Yes, ma'am, I do.

18

Q.

Okay.

19

have Mr. Casey review the draft that you had put together?

20

A.

21

Q.

ND

Yes, he was carbon copied on the e-mail.

14:05:00

And were you aware that Lieutenant Sousa was attempting to

have an attorney review your proposed draft?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Were you also aware that Lieutenant Sousa tried to follow

25

up with his chain of command to make this training happen?

FR

23

So you're aware that Lieutenant Sousa attempted to

IE

22

14:04:46

OF

Okay.

14:04:18

Let's

13

16

14:04:07

14:05:16

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 169

A.

Not directly, but certainly through the e-mail chain I

can -- I can tell that, yes, ma'am.

Q.

about this proposed training?

A.

direct conversations as I sit here today.

Q.

you were still in communication with Lieutenant Sousa about the

proposed training?

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did you have conversations with Lieutenant Sousa

Yes, I believe I likely did, but I don't recall those

And we saw with Exhibit 156 that as of March 27th, 2002,

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

So is it fair to say that you were familiar with efforts

12

that Lieutenant Sousa was making to have the proposed training

13

take place, is that correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

All right.

16

reasons why the training did not take place?

TH
E

OF

So again I'll ask you:

MR. COMO:

18

THE WITNESS:

17

24
25

THE COURT:

14:05:56

Objection, foundation.
I'm not aware of specific reasons --

No, sir.

THE WITNESS:

When there's an objection, you


14:06:10

My apologies, Your Honor.

I'm going to overrule the objection to the

question as asked.

FR

23

Are you aware of

need to wait until I rule on it.

IE

22

THE COURT:

ND

19

21

14:05:45

FO

10

20

14:05:28

The question was, sir:

the training did not take place?

Are you aware of reasons why


14:06:30

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 170

THE WITNESS:

The answer to the question is I'm not

specifically aware of a specific reason the training did not

take place.

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

training did not take place?

A.

No.

Q.

Did you receive any information about why the training did

not take place?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Were you made generally aware of any reasons why the

A.

Not specifically, no, ma'am.

11

Q.

Did you form an opinion -- withdrawn.

12

Do you have an opinion sitting here today, and I want


a yes or a no answer, do you have an opinion sitting here today

14

about why the training that you proposed did not take place?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

What's the basis for having that opinion, without stating

17

it?

18

A.

19

anecdotal conversations with colleagues, with Lieutenant Sousa,

20

and my knowledge and experience in the Human Smuggling Unit

21

over four years.

OF

14:07:12

14:07:29

IE

ND

Experiences through the whole of my entire career,

Q.

And did you have a reason to have an opinion about this

training situation with the training materials, based on all of

FR

23

TH
E

13

22

14:06:51

FO

10

14:06:41

24

that experience at MCSO?

25

A.

Yes.

14:07:44

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 171

Your Honor, I would ask the witness again

whether he could state what his opinion was.

MR. COMO:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. WANG:

Same objection, Your Honor.


I'll allow it.

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

training never took place?

A.

It was contrary to the goals and objectives of the sheriff.

Q.

Sergeant, did you ever have an argument with the sheriff

Sergeant, what's your opinion about why the proposed

that related to the content of the judge's preliminary

11

injunction order?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

When did that take place?

14

A.

Near the end of December 2012, possibly into January

15

2013 -- I'm sorry.

16

2012 is the corrected statement.

17

very shortly following the judge's order on December 23rd,

18

2011.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

14:08:55

I'm not sure when, but it was

OF

Near the end of December 2011, into January

ND

So roughly within a month of the judge's order?


Yes, ma'am.
Can you describe what happened leading to that

IE

Okay.

14:09:10

argument.
A.

FR

23

14:08:36

FO

10

22

14:08:09

The HSU interdiction teams were conducting interdiction on

24

known human smuggling groups on highway.

A vehicle stop had

25

been made of a suspected human smuggling load vehicle.

In the

14:09:28

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 172

course of investigation from the stop it was determined that

there was strong reasonable suspicion, even probable cause, to

believe it was violating the state human smuggling statutes,

and in accordance with training and information we received

through the MCSO chain of command, as well as the Maricopa

County Attorney's Office, we detained the entire occupants in

the vehicle, removed them to our Enforcement Support Division

for continued investigation.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Let me stop you there, Sergeant.

To clarify, there were a number of occupants of that


vehicle that was stopped, is that right?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

Did you have -- on the scene -- were you present at the

14

stop?

15

A.

16

but Sergeant Trowbridge was also working that night, so I don't

17

recall which one of us was actually on scene with it.

18

likely could have been.

19

that would reflect that.

20

Q.

21

A.

I be -- I know I was supervising the stop,

14:10:17

I very

And there would be a police report

ND

OF

I don't recall.

TH
E

11

But you were certainly involved in this investigation?

14:10:33

IE

Yes.

Q.

Personally.

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

investigation, whether the deputies on the scene of the stop

FR

23

14:10:06

FO

10

22

14:09:51

Are you aware, based on your involvement in the


14:10:43

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 173

had probable cause to believe that all of the occupants of the

vehicle had committed a crime under Arizona state law while

they were on the scene?

A.

No, ma'am, I can't state a "yes" answer to that, no.

Q.

Okay.

the occupants of the vehicle there was not probable cause to

believe that they had committed a crime, but there was

suspicion that they were illegally in the United States?

Well, is it your understanding that as to some of

MS. IAFRATE:

10

THE COURT:

11

THE WITNESS:

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

Overruled.

13

smuggling statutes, and in accordance with training and

14

direction we received, we continued the investigation in the

15

detainment to allow us to continue the investigation.

16

BY MS. WANG:

17

Q.

18

stop was it your understanding that some of the occupants of

19

the vehicle were merely suspected of being illegally in the

20

United States, but there was not probable cause to believe that

21

they had committed a crime on the scene of the stop?

OF

TH
E

reasonable suspicion for a violation of the state human

14:11:34

At the scene of the

14:11:49

IE

ND

Well, sir, I'm going to ask you again.

A.

I'm sorry, ma'am, as far as the actual stop location's

concerned, I don't know.

FR

23

14:11:15

My recollection is that we had strong

12

22

14:11:00

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Q.

Sir, do you recall testifying about this incident during

25

your deposition?

14:12:24

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 174

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

I'm just going to read to you your testimony.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Actually, we can call it up.

This is the April 7th,

2015, Deposition of Brett Palmer, on page 57, starting at

line 13.

6
7

And if we can show that.

Sir, this is your testimony.

Once at the Enforcement

Support Division, my recollection --

MS. IAFRATE:

we're starting with an answer.

Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but


Could we -- for the rule of

inclusion, could we start with the question that he's

11

responding to?

12

THE COURT:

You may.

question, Ms. Wang, please.

14

MS. WANG:
BY MS. WANG:

16

Q.

If we can go back up to the

TH
E

13

15

Yes, sir.

14:13:16

OF

So I asked you during your deposition, starting at line 5:

17

"So the policy that HSU was applying at that time is


if you have reasonable suspicion that an individual may be

19

violating a state criminal statute, you can transport them to

20

Enforcement Support to continue the investigation?"

ND

18

14:13:29

And you answered "yes," is that correct?

IE

21
A.

Yes.

Q.

And then you continued:

FR

23

14:13:06

FO

10

22

14:12:46

"Once at the Enforcement Support

24

Division, my recollection is that it was early on, whether we

25

stopped it early afternoon or whatever, but it was early on in

14:13:42

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 175

the day and we're going into the early evening hours.

completing an investigation, in talking to all the passengers

and conducting the investigation, we determined that there was

going to be roughly three-quarters of the load vehicle, is my

recollection, was going to be able to make state charges."

Do you see that, sir?

After

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes.

Q.

So isn't it true that the other one-quarter of the

passengers you could not make state charges on, correct?


A.

After continued investigation, yes, ma'am.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

would not have been probable cause to believe that as to the

13

one quarter of the occupants that they had committed a state

14

crime.

15

A.

Yes, ma'am, that would be accurate.

16

Q.

All right.

TH
E

And on the scene of the stop, obviously, there also

Thank you for clearing that up.

So you had been in the middle of telling the story


about what happened.

You -- HSU deputies took the entire

19

vehicle load full of people back to the Enforcement Support

20

office, is that correct?

21

A.

ND

18

14:14:49

IE

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

We processed the load vehicle, which would have involved

FR

23

14:14:31

OF

17

22

14:14:15

FO

10

14:14:02

What happened next?

24

numerous interviews, interviews with every occupant.

25

Interviews are lengthy, and depending on the size of the actual

14:15:03

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 176

vehicle and people contained, can take several hours.


Upon completion of that is when we determined there

would be three to five individuals that would not be able to

meet criteria for state charges for one reason or another, that

there was no probable cause existing for their charging in the

human smuggling statute under state law.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I moved -- with accordance to instructions I had

received, I moved to move those three to five individuals on

their way, not detain them any longer, because I no longer had
the authority to do that.

11

I had been given instruction that the HSU would


continue doing business in the same manner we had, in that come

13

this point in the investigation of a human smuggling load

14

vehicle, we would turn any people that we were not able to make

15

state charges on over to the custody of Immigration and Customs

16

Enforcement or Customs and Border Patrol.

17

Q.

18

had those people been in custody of MCSO?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

OF

14:16:00

At that point, how long

Let me break in their, Sergeant.

ND

Anywhere from a few hours to several hours.


Okay.

Thank you.

Please continue.

14:16:14

IE

In accordance with my duties and responsibilities and

directions I had received, I contacted detention removal office


for ICE in downtown Phoenix, which I had done on numerous

FR

23

TH
E

12

22

14:15:41

FO

10

14:15:20

24

occasions in the past over the four years I was in the unit,

25

and this was the first time that ICE DRO had refused to accept

14:16:34

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 177

individuals from us following Judge Snow's order on December

23rd, 2011.

GB
OW
.C
OM

It put me in a little bit of a situation because these

individuals did not have any clothing but the ones on their

back; they did not have any money; they didn't have jobs; they

didn't have any family in the state of Arizona.

recollection is there was at least one or two females, a couple

of small children, and possibly another male.

event, what am I supposed to do with these individuals?

My

But in any

Q.

11

Phoenix that they would like to go to?

12

A.

13

the detectives asking that, no.

14

Q.

15

correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

A.

Because ICE DRO had refused them, I was able to identify

19

Customs and Border Patrol in Casa Grande at their Casa Grande

20

station.

21

one of the individuals, that the -- they were going to be

14:17:16

TH
E

I don't recall asking that question specifically or any of

OF

And you had originally called ICE pursuant to HSU protocol,

Please go ahead.

ND

Sorry to interrupt.

14:17:32

14:17:47

IE

At night a CBP officer had verified, in talking with

illegal aliens in the United States and had instructed me that,


yes, they would accept them from us if I would provide

FR

23

Sir, did you ask any of them whether they had family in

FO

10

22

14:16:58

24

transportation.

To that end, I instructed one of our detention

25

officers assigned to the unit to drive them to the Casa Grande

14:18:09

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 178

Border Patrol station where we would turn them over to their

care.

Q.

Enforcement Support to CBP's Casa Grande office?

A.

At least an hour, maybe two.

Q.

Okay.

officer to transport these individuals to CBP?

A.

responsibilities, my lieutenant, Joe Sousa, and informed him of

GB
OW
.C
OM

About what's the -- what's the transit time from

What happened after you directed the HSU detention

I contacted, in accordance with my duties and

the situation.

11

Q.

And what happened during that conversation?

12

A.

I advised Lieutenant Sousa that ICE DRO had refused them,

13

that they were going to be going to Customs and Border Patrol.

14

He was agreeable to that.

15

scenario, and our conversation ended.

TH
E

He had no problems with that, that


14:19:03

I then received a phone call back from Lieutenant

OF

16
Sousa.

As customary for him, he would have reported it up the

18

chain of command to Chief Trombi and/or Chief Sands.

19

Lieutenant Sousa called me back and advised me that I needed to

20

call Sheriff Arpaio directly on his cell phone, that he was

21

requiring a briefing directly from me regarding this -- this

IE

ND

17

14:19:22

incident.

FR

23

14:18:44

FO

10

22

14:18:24

The incident was significant because it was the first

24

time, again, that DRO had refused individuals from us following

25

Judge Snow's order.

14:19:39

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 179

Q.

Had ICE refused to accept suspected undocumented immigrants

from MCSO before Judge Snow's December 2011 order?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right.

with Lieutenant Sousa?

A.

not feel comfortable doing that.

it seemed to me he was following his orders by telling me to

contact the sheriff.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And what happened next with this conversation

My recollection is I advised Lieutenant Sousa that I did

It seemed to me he was not --

He provided me the sheriff's cell phone

number, and I proceeded to my office at the Enforcement Support

11

Division where I made the contact.

12

Q.

And did you call Sheriff Arpaio?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

What happened during that conversation?

15

A.

I spoke to the sheriff; he was on speakerphone in my

16

office.

17

Trowbridge, and at the time it was Deputy Gonzalez, he's now a

18

sergeant, was also present for some portion of this

19

conversation, if not all of it.

TH
E

OF

I advised the sheriff very succinctly and directly of

14:20:43

IE

the situation, and that these individuals that I was turning


over to Customs and Border Patrol was happening, and why it was
happening.

FR

23

14:20:22

And I recall that for a short time Sergeant

ND

20

22

14:20:13

FO

10

21

14:19:55

24

Q.

25

you?

Did you -- and what happened in that -- did he respond to


14:20:59

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 180

A.

Yes, he responded.

Q.

What did he say?

A.

The sheriff took a very authoritative stance with me and

told me that I was not to release those individuals, that I

would maintain custody of those individuals and hold them at

the Enforcement Support Division pending his arrival.

Q.

Did you respond?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What was your response?

10

A.

I told the sheriff immediately that that was an unlawful

11

order and I was not going to follow it.

12

Q.

13

order?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And what happened next during that conversation?

16

A.

The sheriff became argumentative with me and again

17

attempted to direct me to maintain custody of those individuals

18

pending his arrival for an immediate briefing.

19

Q.

20

his order violated a federal court order?

21

A.

FO

14:21:22

TH
E

OF

14:21:32

ND

So he did not acquiesce when you told him that you believed

Okay.

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

Can you tell me about the rest of the conversation.

25

A.

In short, I stuck my ground with the sheriff on an unlawful

FR

14:21:52

Not immediately.

Q.

23

14:21:11

Did you tell him that it would violate a federal court

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did there come a time when he did, finally?

14:22:03

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 181

order that I felt I was being given, and contrary to what I

understood at the time reference Judge Snow's order from

December 23rd, 2011.

GB
OW
.C
OM

The conversation in totality couldn't have lasted more

than a couple minutes, maybe five minutes, and the sheriff,

eventually, when I wasn't giving ground, he backed down and

instructed me to just provide him with photographs of those

three to five individuals.

Q.

Was it standard HSU procedure to photograph individuals who

were not being charged with any crime?

11

A.

No.

12

Q.

And did you cause the photographs to be taken?

13

A.

At the time, I did not want to be in an argument with the

14

sheriff, and it seemed like a reasonable method for me to

15

discontinue the conversation, which was uncomfortable, and move

16

these individuals on their way.

17

detention officer to take the photographs.

18

Q.

19

individuals?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

14:22:56

So, yes, I did instruct the

ND

Did you know why he wanted photographs of these

No, ma'am, I do not.

14:23:08

IE

You mentioned that the sheriff became argumentative with

you while you were having this telephone conversation.

Can you

tell me why you had that feeling that he was being

FR

23

14:22:38

FO

10

22

14:22:23

24

argumentative?

25

A.

I don't know why the sheriff was being argumentative.

14:23:25

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 182

Q.

What I mean is, was it something about his tone of voice?

What gave you the impression that he was being argumentative?

A.

have on numerous occasions needed to take an authoritative

stance of my own with subordinates to direct an order, to move

an investigation forward that is not moving sufficiently or

fast enough that it needs to be, so I'm familiar with that tone

or that rhetoric that gets used.

rhetoric that the sheriff employed.

It was his tone of voice.

GB
OW
.C
OM

It was the -- as a supervisor, I

This is the same tone and

Q.

Did he raise his voice with you on the phone?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Sir, I'm going to show you -- actually, this is not yet

13

admitted, but it has been stipulated to by all parties.

14

is Exhibit 103.

TH
E

15

THE COURT:

OF

103?

This

Is there a stipulation with respect to

17

MS. IAFRATE:

18

THE COURT:

14:24:38

From me, Your Honor, yes.

103 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 103 is admitted into evidence.)

ND

19

MS. WANG:

21

please.

22

IE

20

And can we publish that on the screens,

14:25:07

BY MS. WANG:
Q.

Sir, do you -- Sergeant, do you see Exhibit 103?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

14:24:05

FO

10

16

14:23:46

First, can you explain what a Briefing Board is?

14:25:13

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 183

A.

A Briefing Board is a quick method of dissemination of

policies and information that is critical to employees of the

office in -- to know in the performance of their duties.

Briefing Boards have the full effect of policy.

Q.

And does this go out agency-wide?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And it reads:

11

Sheriff Arpaio, effective immediately, no MCSO personnel shall

12

detain any person for turnover to ICE unless probable cause to

13

arrest or detain exists under Arizona Criminal Law."

GB
OW
.C
OM

So you see this one as dated May 28th, 2013,

By order of

Do you see that?


A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Sir, to your knowledge, before May 28, 2013, did any

17

Briefing Board with that statement ever go out to MCSO?

18

A.

Not to my knowledge.

19

Q.

Sergeant, during the period between December 23rd, 2011,

20

when the judge issued his preliminary injunction order, and

21

your departure from HSU in May of 2012, sitting here now are

14:26:02

14:26:24

IE

ND

OF

15

you aware that MCSO was in violation of that preliminary


injunction order?

FR

23

14:25:44

FO

"Message From the Sheriff.

TH
E

14

22

14:25:35

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

And was it in violation of the order?

14:26:39

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 184

A.

Was it in violation of the order?

Yes.

Q.

All right.

responsible for the violation of the Court's order?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What is that view based on?

A.

The view is based on my experience, my time in the HSU,

interactions with the MCSO chain of command.

Q.

working on those proposed training scenarios?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sir, do you have a view about who was

And is it based on -- in part, on your experience in

A.

Yes, that, too.

11

Q.

Is it also based in part on your interaction with the

12

sheriff considering -- relating to that particular human

13

smuggling investigation?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And can you state what your view is about who is

16

responsible for the violation of the Court's preliminary

17

injunction order?

22

TH
E

OF

ND

THE COURT:

I'll overrule it and I will accept the

14:27:36

testimony for what it's worth.

FR

23

Objection, Your Honor, foundation as to

opinion testimony.

IE

21

MS. IAFRATE:

14:27:25

18

20

14:27:16

FO

10

19

14:26:58

You may answer.


THE WITNESS:

My opinion on who's ultimately

24

responsible is the sheriff.

25

BY MS. WANG:

14:27:53

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 185

Q.

Sergeant, is it your view, based on your years in service

at MCSO, that there are certain prevailing rules that deputies

follow about their duties toward the sheriff?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do any of those prevailing rules have to do with media and

the MCSO?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you tell what -- tell me, please, what's that

prevailing rule at MCSO.


A.

That it's our duty to make the sheriff look good in the

11

media and to the public.

12

Q.

TH
E

Is that fair to say that MCSO personnel are generally

14

very aware that the sheriff is very concerned about media

15

matters?

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

16

Objection, Your Honor, speculation as to

Sustained.

THE COURT:
BY MS. WANG:

20

Q.

21

that you -- based on your conversations on the subject?

ND

19

14:28:56

IE

Sir, are you aware of prevailing views among MCSO personnel

A.

Yes.

Q.

And have you talked to your fellow MCSO personnel about

FR

23

14:28:51

what others know.

18

22

14:28:29

Is it fair to say that the sheriff -- withdrawn.

13

17

14:28:11

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

this prevailing direction that deputies try to make the sheriff

25

look good in the media?

14:29:21

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 186

A.

Yes.

Q.

Are you aware that there is awareness among MCSO personnel

about this -- that the sheriff is very concerned about his

media image?

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Objection, Your Honor, foundation.

I'm going to sustain that.

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

frequently spoke -- frequently speaks publicly in the media

Sergeant, are you aware personally that the sheriff

about MCSO's immigration work?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

To your knowledge, is that known among other MCSO

13

personnel?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And have you heard the sheriff express views that he

16

disagrees with the federal government's policies on

17

immigration?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

And did you hear the sheriff making such statements of

20

disagreement with federal immigration policies after the Court

21

issued its preliminary injunction order?

TH
E

ND

OF

14:30:01

14:30:18

IE
A.

Yes.

Q.

And do you know whether others at MCSO were also aware of

FR

23

14:29:52

FO

10

22

14:29:34

24

those statements by the sheriff?

25

A.

Yes.

14:30:32

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 187

Q.

directly with the sheriff?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you describe the frequency with which you did.

A.

Perhaps once a month, once every couple months, half dozen,

dozen times a year, somewhere around that, on that order.

Q.

HSU's activities while you were there?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Do you know whether it was the sheriff's idea to create

11

HSU?

12

A.

I don't know whose idea it was.

13

Q.

Well, are you aware that the sheriff was very interested in

14

having HSU be a part of MCSO?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Are you aware of a decision to make the Human Smuggling

17

Unit into the Human Smuggling Division?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Did that happen in about 2009?

20

A.

21

Q.

14:31:22

OF

TH
E

FO

14:31:08

ND

Yes, roundabout.

14:31:40

And do you know why that decision was made?

A.

Specifically, no, ma'am.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

14:30:50

Is that fair to say that the sheriff was very involved with

IE

22

Sir, while you were assigned to HSU did you interact

GB
OW
.C
OM

I believe you testified during your deposition about

24

a reason why the switch was made from unit to division.

25

A.

Yes.

14:31:53

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 188

Q.

What was that -- what was that based on?

testimony based on?

MS. IAFRATE:

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

Sir, do you know -- sorry.

THE COURT:

What was your

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to allow the answer without

prejudice to a reassertion of the objection once I hear the

answer.

"What was your deposition testimony based on?" I


believe was the question.

11

THE WITNESS:

My deposition testimony was based on

conversations I had had with Lieutenant Sousa and others in the

13

MCSO, particularly the HSU unit and the HSU chain of command.

14

BY MS. WANG:

15

Q.

16

others in the chain of command had gotten the information

17

directly from the source?

18

A.

I'm not -- "the source"?

19

Q.

Did they receive any information from the sheriff about

20

changing HSU to the Human Smuggling Division?

21

A.

24
25

14:32:40

ND

OF

And was it your understanding that Lieutenant Sousa and

14:32:56

IE

That's my understanding, yes.


MS. WANG:

Okay.

So Your Honor, I would ask the

witness again if he knows why HSU was changed from a unit to a

FR

23

TH
E

12

22

14:32:21

FO

10

14:32:07

division.
THE COURT:

You may answer it.

I don't hear an

14:33:17

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 189

objection.

THE WITNESS:

My understanding is it's because the

GB
OW
.C
OM

sheriff wanted a division versus a unit.

me that a division had better media appeal than a unit.

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

the HSU, the sheriff expressed views to HSU's internal chain of

command about what HSU should be doing?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Sir, was there a point in time where your chain of command

11

made suggestions to HSU about activities that you didn't agree

12

with?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

Can you give me an example of such an occasion.

15

A.

Based on complaint letters from the public, for an example,

16

individuals hanging around a store owner's property, maybe not

17

committing trespassing on that particular store owner's

18

property, but on an adjacent property.

19

reference people that were -- appeared to be of Hispanic

20

descent just lingering or loitering in the area.

22

And is that fair to say that while you were a sergeant in

14:34:08

And the complaint was

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

14:33:46

14:34:33

Ultimately, there was nothing criminal about the onset

of that, but we would be directed to look into the matter, and


to that end, Lieutenant Sousa and -- would discuss it with the

FR

23

14:33:34

IE

21

It was explained to

24

sergeants about how best to implement that while staying within

25

the confines of the law, which typically amounted to

14:34:55

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 190

surveillance efforts.

Q.

those directions from the chain of command?

A.

Yes, on occasion we did, yes.

Q.

Were there other activities that the chain of command

suggested to HSU that concerned immigration enforcement that

you didn't quite agree with?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you describe some of -- some of those.

10

A.

Fairly early on in my career I was approached by Lieutenant

11

Sousa and asked to look into, for the sheriff, that the sheriff

12

wanted to do immigration roadblocks.

13

provide a -- I was asked to provide a legal opinion, which was

14

inappropriate, but I was asked to -- I was given an order to

15

provide some input on that.

TH
E

17

Lieutenant Sousa with information and case law that absolutely

18

stipulated we could not do immigration roadblock enforcement.

19

I do recall that was passed up the chain of command and we

20

never participated in any type of immigration roadblock

21

enforcement, but that's an example of another thing we were

14:35:51

IE

ND

OF

I conducted some brief research and provided

14:36:06

asked to do.
Q.

FR

23

14:35:20

And I was asked to

16

22

14:35:08

FO

GB
OW
.C
OM

And did you undertake surveillance efforts in response to

Okay.

So to sum up, there were occasions on which the

24

chain of command requested that HSU take on enforcement

25

activities that you did not agree with, correct?

14:36:21

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 191

A.

Yes.

Q.

And sometimes you complied and sometimes you did not.

that fair to say?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right.

Is

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to turn to a different subject.

In May of 2014, what was your assignment at MCSO?

A.

May of 2014 I was the detective supervisor for District 3.

Q.

That's your current position?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

All right.

11

from your chain of command to gather video recordings that you

12

had ever made of traffic stops?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

How was that order conveyed to you?

15

A.

My recollection is it was through an e-mail that was

16

disseminated via Chief Trombi through the chain of command.

17

captain at the time was Captain Van Ausdale.

18

disseminated that to me and that's how I received it.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

Q.

14:36:48

14:37:02

My

He would have

OF

TH
E

FO

And in May of 2014 did you receive any orders

ND

And did you respond to that request or that order?

Yes.

14:37:22

All right.
MS. WANG:

Exhibit 176.

FR

23

Okay.

IE

22

14:36:29

24

BY MS. WANG:

25

Q.

I'm going to ask the witness to be shown

This is not in evidence.

Okay, sir.

Go ahead and take a look at Exhibit 176 and let

14:37:56

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 192

me know if you recognize that.

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

What is it?

A.

This is the memorandum that I completed in accordance with

the directive via e-mail from Chief Trombi reference the

recordings.

MS. WANG:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Your Honor, I'd ask that Exhibit 176 be

admitted in evidence.

MS. IAFRATE:

Your Honor, if I just may have a minute.

I believe that this is a portion of an exhibit that's already

11

in evidence that was entered through Chief Trombi, if I could

12

just find the number.


THE COURT:

14

MS. WANG:

Go ahead.

TH
E

13

Maybe I can help.

I believe Ms. Iafrate is

referring to Exhibit 154.


MS. IAFRATE:

Yes, that is correct.

14:38:52

So if the

question is "Any objection?" no, but just for the record, so

18

that we have it clear, this is a portion of Exhibit 154, which

19

is in evidence.

20

22

24
25

Any other objections?

MR. COMO:

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

17

ND

OF

16

14:38:28

FO

10

15

14:38:17

None.

MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:

14:39:04

No objection, Your Honor.


Exhibit 176 is admitted.

(Exhibit No. 176 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MS. WANG:

14:39:15

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 193

Q.

So, Sergeant, I want to ask you a few questions about this

memo and the matters that you describe in it.

GB
OW
.C
OM

First, is everything in this memo accurate, as far as

you know?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

All right.

containing a total of 17 video recordings, is that correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

And is it fair to say that 17 video recordings would not

According to this memo you turned in three DVDs

reflect all of the traffic stops you've ever participated in

11

while you've been at MCSO?

12

A.

That's correct.

13

Q.

It's actually a very minute fraction of all the traffic

14

stops you've ever participated in, is that right?

15

A.

Yes, ma'am.

16

Q.

Is it also true that you have not recorded every traffic

17

stop that you've participated in while at MCSO?

18

A.

That's true.

19

Q.

Now, did you leave any -- let me ask you this:

20

recordings that are reflected in Exhibit 176, were those

21

duplicate copies of recordings that were saved at HSU?

TH
E

Of the 17

IE

ND

OF

14:39:54

A.

Some of them may be, yes, ma'am.

Q.

Well, I should ask you this:

FR

23

14:39:42

FO

10

22

14:39:24

14:40:16

Is it fair to say that some

24

of the recordings that are reflected here occurred while you

25

were at HSU?

14:40:42

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 194

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

And others occurred after you left HSU?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right.

were at HSU have been retained at HSU after your departure?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So these, looks to me like DVD 2 and DVD 3, were copies of

some of the stops you made while you were at HSU.

to say?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Would the recordings that were made while you

Is that fair

A.

Yes, ma'am.

11

Q.

Would those have been duplicate copies of something that

12

was retained at HSU?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

All right.

15

participated in thousands of traffic stops over the course of

16

your career at MCSO?

17

A.

Yes, I would say that's fair.

18

Q.

When you left HSU, can you describe for me what recordings

19

of traffic stops you left there.

20

A.

21

HSU, we were provided with hard drives, external hard drives,

TH
E

Is it fair to say that you probably

ND

OF

14:41:30

14:41:48

IE

At some point later on, near the end of my -- my term in

and we were given a standard operating protocol to, as we


recorded video and traffic stops and during HSU missions, we

FR

23

14:41:17

FO

10

22

14:40:58

24

would download those recordings to the hard drives.

When I

25

left HSU, I turned over custody of that hard drive to my direct

14:42:11

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 195

replacement at HSU.

Q.

not record every traffic stop you ever made?

A.

That's correct, yes.

Q.

So the collection of recordings you left on that external

hard drive would not have reflected every traffic stop you ever

made while at HSU?

A.

No, it could not have.

Q.

And in fact, you were issued two separate video recording

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sir, is it fair to say that while you were at HSU you did

devices while you were at MCS -- at HSU, correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

That's reflected in Exhibit 176?

13

A.

Yes, ma'am.

14

Q.

It's the second bullet point on the first page, sir?

15

A.

Yes, ma'am.

16

Q.

So you had a Scorpion body-mounted camera, is that correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And then you also had an eyeglass-mounted camera, is that

19

correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND
Yes.

In the third paragraph under that you write:

14:43:10

Due to the

limited recording space, limited battery life, notoriously


unexpected failures of the devices, no assigned MDC or laptop

FR

23

14:42:59

IE

22

14:42:45

FO

10

14:42:26

24

to transfer files in field to free up recording space, or

25

charge the devices, and the lack of any specific policy,

14:43:32

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 196

statute, or case law governing the use of the devices, I did

not record traffic stops routinely from beginning to end, and I

did not routinely impound or otherwise administratively retain

recorded traffic stops that did not somehow present themselves

as being significant, either stemming from a legal matter or an

anticipated complaint.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you see that?


A.

Yes.

Q.

Was that accurate?

10

A.

Yes, ma'am.

11

Q.

All right.

12

there was no governing policy that required you to record every

13

traffic stop, correct?

14

A.

That's correct.

15

Q.

And in fact, you didn't have the capacity to do that with

16

the devices you were given?

17

A.

That's correct.

18

Q.

And so you had to be selective in which stops you recorded,

19

correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

14:44:09

That's correct.

14:44:20

And is it fair to say that on occasion, while you were on

patrol during a given shift, your memory might be full on your


recording device, is that right?

FR

23

So is it fair to say that while you were at HSU

IE

22

14:43:56

FO

14:43:49

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Did you ever have occasion to delete files on your

14:44:32

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 197

recording device so that you could record another incident

during your shift?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And is it fair to say that at least during some points

while you were at HSU, there was no written policy governing

what you did with those recordings after they were made,

correct?

A.

A written policy, no, ma'am.

Q.

Okay.

10

A.

Yes, there was a standard operating protocol that

11

Lieutenant Sousa had put out that to the best of our ability,

12

in accordance with what I stated in the paragraph in my

13

memorandum, we were to retain all of the recordings, record

14

every incident, record every traffic stop, all of our

15

encounters, both while working off duty outside of the unit and

16

while working in the unit, and again, retain that to the best

17

of our ability.

18

Q.

19

do, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

Was there any unwritten policy on it?

14:45:25

OF

TH
E

FO

14:45:08

ND

But as you just testified, that was actually impossible to

In totality, yes, ma'am, impossible.


Okay.

14:45:36

Did the unwritten protocol direct deputies as to

when they had to submit recordings of traffic stops to the


property and evidence division?

FR

23

14:44:54

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

No.

25

Q.

Did it give any direction to deputies on when they were

14:45:52

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 198

required to turn in copies of those recordings to the command?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

And that was what you just described?

THE COURT:

MS. WANG:

THE COURT:

Ms. Wang.
Yes, sir.

so when you find a good time, let me know.

11

THE COURT:

12

MS. WANG:

13

(Recess taken.)

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. WANG:

16

THE COURT:

17

MS. WANG:

19

Exhibit 100.

24
25

15 minutes.

TH
E

Please be seated.

May I proceed?

15:04:53

Please do.

Your Honor, I'd like to show the witness

All parties have stipulated to the admission of


It is the Court's --

ND

objection.

Exhibit 100 is admitted, then, without

15:05:08

You may show it to the witness.

MS. WANG:

Thank you, Your Honor.

It is the Court's

February 12th, 2015 order relating to plaintiffs' discovery

FR

23

All right.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

IE

22

14:46:16

OF

Exhibit 100.

This is actually a good time.

18

All right.

FO

MS. WANG:

21

14:46:05

I'm just looking for an afternoon break,

10

20

GB
OW
.C
OM

requests, and I'd like to turn to the second page.


(Exhibit No. 100 is admitted into evidence.)

15:05:24

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 199

BY MS. WANG:

Q.

here?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Those were plaintiffs' requests for discovery which the

Court ordered defendants to produce.

is whether you were ever asked to search for the documents

described in categories A through E on page 2 of Exhibit 100.

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Is it true that you were not asked to do so until the first

11

part of your deposition on April 7?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

Did you finally have your documents searched on April 13th

14

of 2015?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And during that search -- well, first, who conducted that

17

search, sir?

18

A.

Sergeant Nick Schrey from the compliance division.

19

Q.

Is that the MCSO's court compliance division?

20

A.

21

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

My question to you, sir,

15:06:09

OF

TH
E

FO

15:05:54

ND

A.

him.

FR

23

15:05:34

Yes, ma'am.

15:06:24

Did anyone else participate in that search with Mr. Schrey?

IE

22

Sergeant, do you see the paragraphs labeled A through E

Yes, there was another sergeant from the same division with
I -- the name of the individual escapes me at this time.

24

Q.

All right.

And did the two sergeants from CCID search your

25

desktop computer at District 3 patrol's offices?

15:06:38

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 200

A.

Yes.

Q.

And is it true that they did not take any documents with

them as a result of that search?

A.

Yes, that's true.

Q.

Now, this computer that they searched, which is at your

District 3 office, was not the same computer you had while you

were at HSU, is that correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

You left that computer at HSU when you transferred out, is

GB
OW
.C
OM

that correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Do you know whether anyone has searched your computer to

13

search for documents listed in categories A through E in

14

Exhibit 100?

15

A.

I do not know.

16

Q.

Did you suggest to the sergeants from CCID that they make a

17

search of that computer?

18

A.

19

five computers removed at this point.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

All right.

Did they respond to that?

Not directly.

15:07:32

Just that they were following through with

the instruction that they were given.


Q.

FR

23

15:07:21

Not specifically, but I reminded them that I was four or

IE

22

15:07:03

FO

10

15:06:52

All right.

Did they indicate they would go and search your

24

past computers that'd used before your assignment to

25

District 3?

15:07:50

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 201

A.

They did not indicate that, no.

Q.

Sir, is it fair to say that while you were at HSU you might

have had other documents that related to the Court's

preliminary injunction order from December of 2011?

A.

Yes.

Q.

There might have been other documents other than the ones

we've seen today, Exhibits 156 and 189?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you believe that there are such documents that existed

GB
OW
.C
OM

at the time?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

There might have been e-mails between you and Lieutenant

13

Sousa on that subject?

14

A.

And others, yes.

15

Q.

All right.

16

kept a lot of records electronically while he was at HSU?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And, sir, at the time that you left HSU was it your

19

understanding that the document preservation notice for this

20

litigation was still in effect?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

OF

15:08:25

ND

Q.

15:08:43

Correct.

Well, let me back up.

Let me withdraw the

question.

FR

23

And is it fair to say that Lieutenant Sousa

I'm sorry, while at HSU?

IE

22

15:08:16

FO

10

15:08:05

Sir, while you were at HSU were you aware that HSU was

directed to save certain documents related to this litigation?

15:08:58

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 202

A.

Yes.

Q.

And were you -- did you have the understanding at the time

that you transferred out of HSU that that requirement was still

in place?

A.

Yes.

Q.

I'm going to change gears slightly.

regular practice of issuing a -- what's known as a DR number or

an IR number?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

So let me just sum this up to try to save some time.

11

fair to say that when an MCSO deputy is engaged in law

12

enforcement practices and needs to write a report, that he or

13

she would get a unique identifying number issued from the

14

communications division?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And that's referred to as a DR number or an IR number?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And a DR stands for "Departmental Report," is that correct?

19

A.

Yes.

20

Q.

21

A.

Sir, does MCSO have a

15:09:25

15:09:43

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

It's

IR stands for "Incident Report," is that correct?

15:09:52

Yes.

Q.

Those two things mean the same thing, right?

A.

Yes.

24

Q.

All right.

25

records division will do a regular audit to make sure that a

FR

23

15:09:09

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

And is it a regular practice that MCSO's


15:10:05

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 203

report was turned in to match up with the number that was

assigned by the communications division?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And if any reports are missing, that the relevant commander

will be made aware of that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And would there be something called a missing DR list that

would be sent out to commanders?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

All right.

11

was a problem at MCSO with missing DRs that were not followed

12

up on in a timely fashion?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And is it true that at one point in time while you were at

15

HSU, if there was a missing DR, a deputy could respond to that

16

by filing something known as a DR taken in error face sheet?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Can you describe what that is?

19

A.

A DR taken in error face sheet is a single-page document

20

that we use to address matters where an IR number, DR

21

number has been issued inappropriately or mistakenly to an

15:10:32

15:10:57

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

While you were at HSU, is it true that there

15:10:22

15:11:15

incident.

FR

23

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

It's actually fairly common, in my opinion, over my

24

experience.

Communications division sometimes will

25

inadvertently assign a report number and there should not be

15:11:31

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 204

one.

The deputy may pull a report number and he didn't mean

to.

service as we complete the incident.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Some of this has to do with the way we code calls for

In the incidents that truly do not require an incident

report the DR taken in error face sheet would be used to

address that and solve the issue of records having something in

their files to address that report number.

division issues a number, it can't taken back in the -- in the

computer-aided dispatch system.

Once communications

10

Q.

11

of the time you were assigned to HSU, the practice was that

12

that missing -- withdrawn.

14

was that the DR taken in error face sheet would not require any

15

backup documentation?

16

A.

Initially, yes; it did change later on.

17

Q.

Right.

18

submit a piece of paper saying that DR number was issued in

19

error without any supporting documentation, is that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

OF

15:12:22

ND

So at one point in time a deputy could simply

Yes.

15:12:39

And that practice was changed at some point, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Because it was seen as problematic that there was no

FR

23

Is that fair?

IE

22

15:12:00

Is it true that during your time at HSU, the practice

TH
E

13

And is it fair to say that during at least part

FO

All right.

15:11:46

24

documentation needed, is that right?

25

A.

Yes.

15:12:49

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 205

Q.

Otherwise, there would be no check on a deputy actually not

filing a departmental report when in fact one needed to be

submitted, is that correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Do you know when that policy changed?

A.

To the best of my recollection, somewhere in the

neighborhood of 2009, 2010, while I was at HSU, I believe.

Q.

Armendariz was a deputy there, is that correct?

All right.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Sergeant, when you were at HSU, Charley

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

You were not his direct supervisor, is that right?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

During part of the time that you were at HSU,

14

Sergeant Madrid was his direct supervisor, is that right?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And then when Sergeant Madrid was transferred out of HSU,

17

Sergeant Trowbridge became Deputy Armendariz's supervisor?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Is it true that you and your co-sergeant in HSU would often

20

co-supervise deputies?

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

15:13:35

15:13:49

Yes.

IE
Q.

So you had charge of a certain squad of deputies, but

during any given shift you might also functionally supervise

FR

23

15:13:22

FO

10

22

15:13:03

24

Sergeant Madrid's deputies?

25

A.

Yes.

15:14:01

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 206

Q.

Same with Sergeant Trowbridge?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Were you aware while Deputy Armendariz was assigned to HSU

that he had a high number of civilian complaints against him?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Were you aware of other issues with Deputy Armendariz?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What were those?

A.

They mainly all stemmed from complaint issues in his

GB
OW
.C
OM

traffic stops, and in his off-duty traffic stops that he was

11

conducting while assigned to the HSU.

12

Q.

Did you have an opinion -- withdrawn.


You were familiar with Deputy Armendariz's work.

TH
E

13

Is

14

that fair to say?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Do you believe that he exhibited any good qualities as a

17

deputy?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

What were those?

20

A.

21

charger.

OF

ND

15:14:55

He was somebody in the unit that we could rely on to

work hard out on interdiction patrols.


make traffic stops.

FR

23

15:14:48

Deputy Armendariz was what I would refer to as a hard

IE

22

15:14:30

FO

10

15:14:14

He was not afraid to

He was someone who had a high --

24

number-high record of human smuggling load vehicle catches,

25

which stems from the 20, 30, 40, 50 stops he would make in a

15:15:24

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 207

given interdiction patrol.

Q.

high number of traffic stops during a given shift?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And it was also true that overall, he later identified a

higher-than-normal number of load vehicles during his traffic

stops?

A.

Yes.

Q.

I believe you testified during your deposition that Deputy

GB
OW
.C
OM

Is it fair to say that Deputy Armendariz made an unusually

Armendariz was successful in identifying load vehicles, partly

11

because he had such a high volume of overall stops.

12

fair to say?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

I believe you said that was a numbers game?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

All right.

17

that on occasion Chief Sands or Chief Trombi would notify HSU

18

that your numbers were down and you needed to increase them.

TH
E

Is that

15:16:06

OF

You mentioned during your deposition as well

20

MS. IAFRATE:
MS. WANG:

Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.

Withdrawn.

Let me ask it this way.

15:16:30

IE

21

apologize.
BY MS. WANG:

FR

23

15:15:55

Do you recall that testimony?

ND

19

22

FO

10

15:15:40

24

Q.

Did you ever receive word from HSU's chain of command that

25

HSU's arrest numbers were down?

15:16:42

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 208

A.

Yes.

Q.

And were you given instructions about what to do about

that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What were those -- what were you told to do?

A.

When HSU would have lulls and our arrest numbers were down,

we would be asked, or even at times instructed through the

chain of command, to begin interdiction patrols to produce

arrest numbers, particularly arrests for the human smuggling

GB
OW
.C
OM

state statutes, is what was being sought.

11

Q.

12

of command that your arrest numbers were down, that would

13

include arrests under the Arizona state human smuggling

14

statute?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

It also included arrests of suspected undocumented

17

immigrants, isn't that right?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

That would also count towards the arrest numbers, as far as

20

the chain of command was concerned?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

15:17:33

ND

Q.

15:17:43

Yes.

And when you say "chain of command" in this context, you

mean Chief Sands and Chief Trombi?

FR

23

And is it fair to say that when you were told by your chain

IE

22

15:17:20

FO

10

15:16:50

24

A.

Yes, and to include the sheriff.

25

Q.

All right.

You also just testified that Armendariz had

15:17:58

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 209

negative qualities as a deputy.

Is that your assessment?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you describe those.

A.

In short, he was a supervisory nightmare.

good-quality deputy you could put on the road, hard charger,

was not afraid to work.

complaints that came in on him on a regular basis was very

quickly becoming difficult to justify managing him in the unit.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

He was a

But at the same time, the number of

Are you aware of any steps that HSU command, local command,

I mean Lieutenant Sousa or a sergeant in HSU, took to address

11

that volume of civilian complaints against Deputy Armendariz?

12

A.

13

believe factually that Sergeant Trowbridge did do this through

14

Lieutenant Sousa, that we attempted to have him transferred on

15

a number of occasions.

16

Q.

17

any other steps to deal with the civilian complaints against

18

Deputy Armendariz?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

It's my recollection that both Sergeant Madrid, I know -- I

15:19:06

ND

Yes.

OF

Did any HSU lieutenant or sergeant, to your knowledge, take

What were those steps?

15:19:18

IE

At one point before the Scorpion cameras and the eyeglass

cameras, Lieutenant Sousa ordered, through our grant funding, a


dash-mounted camera.

FR

23

15:18:41

FO

10

22

15:18:20

Deputy Armendariz was specifically taken

24

out of an unmarked vehicle and placed into a fully marked

25

vehicle for his take-home vehicle, and the dash-mounted camera

15:19:39

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 210

was given to him and he was instructed, through Lieutenant

Sousa to Sergeant Madrid, to record all of his traffic stops

and impound the tapes.

the division or through evidence I don't know, but that was one

action that was taken.

Q.

to record all of his traffic stops?

A.

the eyeglass cameras came that we were required to record all

GB
OW
.C
OM

Whether that was administratively at

So it's your impression that Deputy Armendariz was required

Yes, in the same context that when the Scorpion cameras and

stops.

11

Q.

12

with the Scorpion brand body-mounted camera that it was

13

physically impossible to record all stops during a given shift,

14

is that right?

15

A.

That's right.

16

Q.

Would that have applied to Deputy Armendariz after he was

17

directed to record all his traffic stops?

18

A.

19

system that he had or its recording capacity.

20

to the Scorpion video cameras and the eyeglass cameras.

21

Q.

OF

TH
E

But you testified earlier that based on your own experience

15:20:34

I'm not familiar with the camera


I can only speak

ND

It likely should have.

15:20:48

IE

And again, he had a very high volume of traffic stops per

shift in general, correct?


A.

Correct.

24

Q.

Were any steps taken to ensure that Deputy Armendariz was

25

in fact turning in recordings of all of his traffic stops?

FR

23

15:20:21

FO

10

22

15:20:02

15:21:00

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 211

A.

I don't know.

Q.

Sir, do you think that -- well, are you aware that anyone

in HSU raised concerns about Deputy Armendariz with the chain

of command?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And was any action requested of the chain of command with

respect to Deputy Armendariz?

A.

Requested from the chain of command down to us?

Q.

No, from HSU sergeants and lieutenant up the chain of

GB
OW
.C
OM

command.

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And what was that request?

13

A.

We tried to have him transferred on at least one, if not

14

two or three occasions.

15

Q.

16

to the chain of command?

17

A.

Not that I'm aware of.

18

Q.

Was anyone in HSU assigned -- withdrawn.

TH
E

S
ND

Was any sergeant in HSU assigned to do ride-alongs

with Deputy Armendariz to give him a greater degree of

21

supervision?

15:22:06

IE

20

A.

No, not to my recollection.

Q.

Sir, what was the response from the chain of command to

FR

23

15:21:47

OF

Were any other requests relating to Deputy Armendariz made

19

22

15:21:42

FO

10

15:21:21

24

HSU's request to transfer Deputy Armendariz out?

25

A.

It failed at the chief level.

15:22:24

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 212

Q.

Do you have an understanding as to why that happened?

A.

No, I do not.

Q.

Sir, were you ever given training while you were at HSU on

how to supervise deputies under your command?

A.

Specifically, no, I don't recall that.

Q.

I have just a few more questions.

gears here.

8
9

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm going to change

While you were at HSU -- let me narrow it down to the


2010-2012 time frame -- did you have a general understanding of
how IA investigations took place?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Did you have an understanding about who ultimately made a

13

decision as to the outcome of IA investigations?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Who was that?

16

A.

For minor discipline it would be the division commander.

17

Q.

And for major discipline?

18

A.

Major discipline was generally referred up the chain of

19

command to be decided on by the sheriff or his designee.

20

Q.

21

deputy's role was in IA investigations during the 2010 to 2012

TH
E

ND

OF

15:23:20

15:23:38

IE

And did you have an understanding about what the chief

time frame?
A.

Yes, he was the sheriff's designee.

24

Q.

So your understanding during that time was that Chief

25

Deputy Sheridan was it?

FR

23

15:23:10

FO

10

22

15:22:46

15:23:56

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 213

A.

there where Chief Scott Freeman was the designee, and then I

think even Chief Bill Knight took that over for some time, but

that was right around that same period.

Q.

you ever have a conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan about a

pending open IA investigation?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Is that investigation now closed?

10

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

And just in the interest of saving time, let me try to

12

narrow down what this investigation was about.

13

concerning a joint investigation by HSU and ICE?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And is it true that the IA investigation essentially was

16

about a false statement that an HSU deputy had put in a

17

departmental report?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

And the Maricopa County Attorney's Office prosecutor was

20

the one who discovered this and referred the matter for an IA

21

investigation, is that correct?

While you were at HSU, did

FO

So let me ask you this:

15:24:11

15:24:25

15:24:40

ND

OF

TH
E

Was this

A.

Yes.

Q.

And were there other members of HSU who were also named as

FR

23

Okay.

There was a time period

15:24:54

IE

22

Yes, that's my understanding.

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

principals, as investigative targets in that IA investigation?

25

A.

Yes.

15:25:08

Q.

Who were they?

A.

Myself, Sergeant Trowbridge, Lieutenant Sousa, Deputy Jesus

Cosme, Deputy Alejandro Ortega, and I believe Deputy Roland

Gonzalez.

Q.

that IA investigation?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Including both sergeants and the lieutenant of HSU?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And did there come a time when you -- well, let me add

11

this.

12

allegation that a tip was planted on MCSO's immigration

13

hotline?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

Let me ask you this:

16

conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan about that

17

investigation while it was still open?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Can you describe that conversation?

20

A.

21

point.

22

15:25:26

15:25:34

FO

So several members of HSU were investigative targets in

TH
E

Is it also true that the IA investigation involved an

15:25:52

ND

OF

Did there come a time when you had a

I had already been transferred out of the unit at that

15:26:05

Not long after I had been transferred out the

investigation was still open; it had been nearing several


months that it had been open.

FR

23

GB
OW
.C
OM

IE

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 214

There was a training session at

24

the training center that occurred.

I was in attendance.

25

Sheridan was speaking at the training session.

Chief
15:26:25

Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 215

As he left and departed the training room, I took it


upon myself for both myself and the benefit of the HSU members

who were under investigation, one of which was on

administrative leave for the last several months, I approached

Chief Deputy Sheridan, and I did not discuss the details of the

investigation, but I did ask that right, wrong, or indifferent,

discipline, no discipline, regardless of the outcome, if we

could have a resolution to the investigation rather than

letting it drag on and keeping a deputy sheriff on admin leave

GB
OW
.C
OM

and the rest of us in limbo with the outcome.

11

Q.

And did Chief Deputy Sheridan respond to you?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

What did he say?

14

A.

Chief Sheridan responded to me by saying pointedly I should

15

tell the deputy on admin leave that he had nothing to worry

16

about, that the investigation had passed 120 days, business

17

days, and that he could not perform major discipline to the

18

deputy if he wanted to at that point.

19

Q.

20

A.

21

expect -- I guess I expected more of a sternness from the chief

TH
E

OF

ND

Was there any more to that conversation after that?


Only my dumbfoundedness at the response.

I did not

15:27:37

deputy about it.


Q.

FR

23

15:27:18

IE

22

15:27:05

FO

10

15:26:45

And what was the outcome of that IA investigation

24

ultimately?

25

A.

I received minor discipline, a reprimand; I believe other

15:27:53

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 216

written reprimands were issued, but I'm not factually certain

on that; and the deputy on administrative leave was returned to

duty.

Q.

authored the departmental report with the false statement in

it?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did anyone, to your knowledge, receive any major discipline

coming out of that IA investigation?

Was the deputy on administrative leave the one who had

No.

11
12

FO

A.

MS. WANG:

I have nothing further for you now.

you.

13

THE COURT:

14

CROSS-EXAMINATION

16

Q.

Good afternoon, Sergeant.

17

A.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

18

Q.

You're not happy with your career path at Maricopa County

19

Sheriff's Office, are you?

15:28:59

ND

OF

BY MS. IAFRATE:

20

MS. WANG:
THE COURT:

IE

21

Objection, leading.

15:29:12

I'm going to allow it.

THE WITNESS:

To a certain extent, no, ma'am.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

FR

23

15:28:24

Ms. Iafrate.

15

22

15:28:13

Thank

TH
E

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

Q.

You were passed over for promotion to lieutenant on two

25

occasions, correct?

15:29:25

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 217

A.

Yes.

Q.

You don't think that's right, do you?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Do you know why you were passed over for promotion?

A.

Factually, no.

Q.

When did you find out about the preliminary injunction?

came out December 23, 2011.

A.

Fairly immediately following the injunction issuance.

Q.

Do you think it would have been before the new year?

10

A.

I want to say yes.

11

Q.

You said on direct examination that you read it?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

Did someone provide it to you?

14

A.

That's my recollection, yes.

15

Q.

Who provided it to you?

16

A.

That, I do not recall.

17

Q.

Were you instructed to read it?

18

A.

I don't recall if I was instructed to read it; I just

19

recall reading it.

20

Q.

21

A.

15:30:00

TH
E

OF

15:30:13

ND

Did you understand it?

15:30:25

Yes.

Q.

Did you discuss it with an attorney?

A.

Not to my recollection.

24

Q.

After you read it, what did you do --

25

A.

I con- --

FR

23

It

FO

My recollection is yes.

15:29:34

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

15:30:34

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 218

Q.

-- with the information that you had?

A.

I consulted with my superior, Lieutenant Sousa, my

co-supervisors, and received direction on how the Human

Smuggling Unit was to do business in accordance with this

Court's order.

Q.

conduct business pursuant to the court order?

A.

through the chain of command.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Who did you get that information from on how HSU was to

I don't really specifically, ma'am, just that it was

Q.

11

of command a chain because there are links going up, correct?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

So that the link closest to you, your direct report, would

14

be whom?

15

A.

Lieutenant Joe Sousa.

16

Q.

So would you have received that information from Joe Sousa?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

After you -- you read the preliminary injunction.

19

after that you yourself took it upon yourself to conduct

20

training, correct?

21

A.

15:31:07

TH
E

Sometime

ND

OF

15:31:19

15:31:38

Yes.

IE
Q.

In fact, you said that you conducted training for all

squads within HSU, correct?

FR

23

Well, when you say the chain of command, we call the chain

FO

10

22

15:30:52

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

No one told you not to do training, right?

15:31:49

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 219

Your Honor, I'm going to object to the

leading.

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. WANG:

I'm going to allow it for the same reasons

I allow you to lead MCSO witnesses that are hostile, or

arguably hostile to you.

I'm going to overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS:

I'm going to allow some leading, so

The answer to your question, ma'am, is

no, nobody told me not to do the training.

BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.

11

conducting training?

12

A.

Lieutenant Joe Sousa was, yes, ma'am.

13

Q.

Well, he's your chain of command, correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

These training scenarios that we looked at -- it's

16

Exhibit 189, and we're going to get to that in just a moment --

17

those weren't related to the training that you were doing in

18

HSU, correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

training scenarios that you and Lieutenant Sousa were kicking

15:32:18

TH
E

OF

15:32:26

What exhibits?

ND

I'm sorry.

The

15:32:43

IE

Show you what's Exhibit 189, which is in evidence.

back and forth, that wasn't the training that you were doing
for HSU, correct?

FR

23

And your chain of command was aware that you were

FO

10

22

15:32:06

24

A.

No, ma'am, not specifically.

25

Q.

Prior to conducting your training in HSU, did you generate

15:33:06

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 220

any curriculum?

A.

No, ma'am.

Q.

Were you the trainer?

A.

It was informal training at briefings.

the trainer, and I believe I was assisted by my co-sergeants.

Q.

Which would be who?

A.

At the time, Sergeant Trowbridge, Cesar Brockman, Deputy

Cesar Brockman.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Yes, ma'am, I was

You believed that training was necessary, and therefore you

took it upon yourself to conduct that training, correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Now, Exhibit 189 is on the screen, it's in evidence, and

13

you were shown this during direct examination.

TH
E

14

Do you recall this?


A.

I do, yes.

16

Q.

Did you ever receive feedback from Tim Casey regarding your

17

training scenarios?

18

A.

Not to my recollection, no, ma'am.

19

Q.

As you sit here today, do you know if you received feedback

20

from Tim Casey?

21

A.

15:34:01

ND

OF

15

15:34:18

Not to my recollection as I sit here today, no, ma'am.

IE
Q.

Did you ever have a direct conversation with Tim Casey

regarding your training scenarios?

FR

23

15:33:41

FO

10

22

15:33:24

24

A.

I could have, but I don't recall that conversation.

25

Q.

When did you first meet Tim Casey?

15:34:34

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 221

A.

Possibly somewhere around 2010, 2011.

It was in reference

to other litigation that was occurring.

Q.

Did you have a conversation with him at that time?

A.

I'm sure I did.

Q.

And it didn't relate to Melendres?

A.

Not that I recall.

Q.

Well, you said "other litigation," right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So that would -- what I hear when you say that is

GB
OW
.C
OM

litigation other than Melendres, correct?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

I'm just trying to determine, Sergeant, that conversation

13

you're talking about in 2010-2011, did it relate to Melendres?

14

A.

Not to my recollection.

15

Q.

When you read the preliminary injunction and were briefed

16

and had conversations with Lieutenant Sousa, one of the things

17

that you determined was that if there was no charge, then the

18

person should be immediately released, correct?

TH
E

15:35:17

OF

MS. WANG:

20

THE COURT:

Objection, compound.
I'm going to allow it.

THE WITNESS:

15:35:48

Yes.

IE

21

BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.

FR

23

There were a number of lawsuits filed against HSU.

ND

19

22

15:35:05

FO

10

15:34:53

Another thing was that you talked about on direct

24

examination was as long as you're still conducting an ongoing

25

investigation, you could continue to detain that person,

15:35:59

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 222

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And then finally, if there was no state charge, the person

could be transferred to ICE or Border Patrol, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You know now that that's not accurate, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

But back when you read the preliminary injunction and

trained people at HSU, you were training regarding those

GB
OW
.C
OM

scenarios, correct?

11

A.

In conjunction with the instructions I received, yes.

12

Q.

My point is what you know now after all of this is

13

different than what you were training on back when you read the

14

preliminary injunction, correct?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Now, there was a -- you were asked to generate these

17

training scenarios, correct?

18

A.

Yes.

19

Q.

By your chain of command?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

ND
Yes.

15:37:12

You also testified on direct examination that there was a

time where you were requested to give a legal opinion, correct?


A.

Yes.

24

Q.

And not to be too glib, you don't have a law degree,

25

correct?

FR

23

15:36:42

IE

22

15:36:27

FO

10

15:36:13

15:37:25

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 223

A.

That's correct.

Q.

But you did some research, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you generated a legal opinion, correct?

A.

No, ma'am, I didn't generate a legal opinion; I generated

information that I passed up my chain of command.

Q.

You passed that up to Lieutenant Sousa?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

And were you present when Lieutenant Sousa provided it to

GB
OW
.C
OM

anyone else?

11

A.

No.

12

Q.

Who are the attorneys for MCSO, generally?

13

A.

Over the last four, five years, Tim Casey, Tom Liddy,

14

yourself, and there's been one or two others that I've done

15

depositions with; I just can't recall their names right now.

16

Q.

17

doing legal research?

18

A.

No, ma'am.

19

Q.

And in fact, there's someone in the MCSO that has a law

20

degree that doesn't practice law.

21

MacIntyre prior to sending it up your chain of command?

TH
E

OF

ND

Did you run it by Jack

A.

I assume that would have been done through the chain.

Q.

My question was:

FR

23

15:38:16

You didn't ask any of them to pass judgment on your task of

IE

22

15:37:50

FO

10

15:37:33

Did you submit it to Jack MacIntyre for

24

review before sending it up the chain of command?

25

A.

No.

15:38:38

15:38:58

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 224

Q.

There was some -- well, let me just ask you this:

Can you

define for me what "strong reasonable suspicion" means?

A.

reasonable suspicion."

reasonable belief that facts, evidence, circumstances that a

crime is -- has occurred, is about to occur, or may occur, and

the more facts and evidence and circumstances is just simply my

terminology for strong reasonable suspicion, but in totality

real suspicion stands alone by itself.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Reasonable suspicion -- there is no definition for "strong


It's just proof that our reasons --

You have it or you

don't have it.

11

Q.

12

is synonymous with probable cause?

13

A.

No.

14

Q.

So Ms. Wang was asking you questions about an incident that

15

occurred where you were not at the scene.

16

on direct examination?

17

A.

I don't recall if I was or was not at the scene.

18

Q.

Do you recall if the people at the scene had reasonable

19

suspicion or probable cause?

20

A.

21

the other existed.

TH
E

15:40:12

OF

Do you recall that

ND

Q.

FR

23

So what you're saying is strong reasonable suspicion

That's my understanding, that one or both existed, one or

IE

22

15:40:01

FO

10

Okay.

15:39:36

15:40:29

Which one?
MS. WANG:

Objection, Your Honor.

It's not clear,

24

reasonable suspicion of what, or probable cause to believe

25

what?

15:40:43

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 225

Can you establish that, please,

Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

THE COURT:

Sure, Your Honor.

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

me, direct examination -- where you were dealing with an

incident that occurred at an HSU interdiction in which you were

describing that there was strong reasonable suspicion or PC.

There was some discussion on cross-examination -- or excuse

Do you recall testifying to that?


A.

Yes.

11

Q.

What were you referring to when you were talking about

12

strong reasonable suspicion or probable cause?

13

A.

14

terminology, but real suspicion stands by itself.

15

trying to indicate is that the detective on scene at the

16

traffic stop had enough facts, articulable evidence,

17

statements, observations, to ascertain that a crime in human

18

smuggling was afoot, had occurred, was about to occur, was

19

occurring.

20

Q.

21

A.

All I'm
15:41:20

ND

OF

TH
E

Again, I apologize for the use of the word "strong" in that

For all individuals within that vehicle?

15:41:38

IE

That's my understanding, yes.

Q.

What do you base your understanding on?

A.

The fact that the individuals were transported back to the

FR

23

15:41:08

FO

10

22

15:40:49

24

Enforcement Support Division for continued investigation.

25

Q.

So one of your understandings regarding the preliminary

15:41:52

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 226

injunction was that if there was an ongoing investigation, the

person could continue to be detained, correct?

A.

MCAO, yes, ma'am.

Q.

MCAO, you're talking about the County Attorney's Office?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So that was your belief back then, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You know that not to be accurate, correct?

10

A.

I do not believe that's accurate now, no.

11

Q.

When to your satisfaction the investigation was concluded

12

and you made a determination that there would not be charges

13

against three to five of the individuals, it was your decision

14

to then contact ICE to have them transported?

15

A.

My decision with instructions I'd received, yes.

16

Q.

And ICE refused to accept these individuals, correct?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

And so then you took it upon yourself to call Border

19

Patrol, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

15:42:49

ND

OF

TH
E

FO

15:42:19

Yes.

15:43:00

And you understand now that the holding of these

violates the preliminary injunction.

24
25

15:42:11

individuals for a period of time and the transport likewise

FR

23

Per instructions received through the chain of command at

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Are you aware of that now?


Yes, that's my understanding.

15:43:11

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 227

Q.

You said that it wasn't highly unusual that you spoke

directly to Sheriff Arpaio, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

That was a bad question.

GB
OW
.C
OM

On occasion, you spoke to Sheriff Arpaio directly,

correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

So you would bypass certain people in your chain of command

and speak directly to the sheriff?


A.

I would not bypass them, no, ma'am.

11

Q.

You would be instructed to call him directly?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

This call that you made you said between December 2011 to

14

January 2012, do you know where the sheriff was when he

15

received your call?

16

A.

No, I don't.

17

Q.

Do you know if he was in state or out of state?

18

A.

I presume he was in state, 'cause he was at the Enforcement

19

Support Division within an hour.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

How did you get his number?

15:44:18

Lieutenant Sousa provided it to me.


This interdiction that we were talking about previously

where you had the individuals transported back to the

FR

23

15:44:06

IE

22

15:43:47

FO

10

15:43:34

24

Enforcement Support building, was that the first time that ICE

25

refused to accept people that you called for them to transport?

15:44:47

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 228

A.

Yes, following the December 23rd, 2011, order.

Q.

Had you, HSU, anyone in your chain of command to you,

discussed -- discussed a backup plan prior to that date?

A.

Not to my recollection.

Q.

You described the conversation that you had with Sheriff

Arpaio as being -- I cannot remember the adjective that you

used.

Were voices raised?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

And you stood your ground?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Ultimately, the sheriff conceded, correct?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And you had a plan in place to transport these to Border

15

Patrol, which you effectuated, correct?

16

A.

Yes.

17

Q.

I want to show you what's in evidence as Exhibit 176.

TH
E

OF

This is something that you looked at on direct


examination, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

Yes, ma'am.

15:46:41

IE

This is an e-mail that you generated to Captain Van Ausdal,

correct?
A.

Yes, ma'am.

24

Q.

Was this in response to a request to you?

25

A.

Yes.

FR

23

ND

19

22

15:45:41

18

15:45:31

FO

15:45:10

15:46:52

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 229

Q.

Who made the request?

A.

My recollection is the request came via e-mail from Chief

Trombi.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

In this memorandum -- well, let me back up.

It's dated May 19, 2014, correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

It discusses videos that you were memorializing, correct?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

Q.

Prior to May 2014, did anyone request you to gather videos

or audios that you generated?

11

A.

No.

12

Q.

Prior to May 2014, you were aware that videos existed,

13

correct?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And, in fact, in October of 2009 you were deposed in this

16

case, correct?

17

A.

I don't recall.

18

Q.

I'm not going to hold you to the date.

19

several times, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

I probably was.

ND

You've been deposed

I've been deposed several times, yes.

15:48:01

And I wasn't at that deposition, was I?

A.

I don't recall you being there, no, ma'am.

Q.

During that deposition you discussed cameras used in HSU,

FR

23

15:47:33

IE

22

15:47:23

FO

10

15:47:03

24

didn't you?

25

A.

I may have.

15:48:12

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 230

Q.

Do you know, were there cameras at HSU in 2009?

A.

I believe so, yes.

Armendariz would have received his dash camera, and somewhere

around that same time he would have purchased the Scorpion

camera.

Q.

have a camera record all of his stops?

A.

No.

Q.

You were very briefly Deputy Armendariz's supervisor,

GB
OW
.C
OM

That was about the time that Deputy

Were you involved in the decision to have Deputy Armendariz

correct?

11

A.

Through co-supervision in the field, yes.

12

Q.

I think there was like a two-week period where you had to

13

accept responsibility until someone else came in, is that

14

accurate?

15

A.

16

period because Sergeant Madrid, for administrative matters, was

17

incapable of supervising Deputy Armendariz.

18

Q.

19

Sergeant Madrid and then Sergeant Trowbridge?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

There was a very brief week or two-week

15:48:59

OF

I apologize.

ND

But other than that he was -- he was charged to mostly

Yes.

15:49:19

IE

There was some discussion on direct examination that talked

about attempts to have Deputy Armendariz transferred.

Do you

recall that?

FR

23

15:48:48

FO

10

22

15:48:32

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Were you involved with the discussions with Chief Trombi as

15:49:32

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 231

it related to Deputy Armendariz?

A.

No.

Q.

Sergeant Palmer, you know that when there is an IA pending,

you are not to discuss the IA, correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And yet you chose to do so, correct?

A.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

Q.

When you approached Chief Sheridan and asked him about an

open IA.

GB
OW
.C
OM

To what are you referring?

A.

I did not discuss the particulars of the IA with him.

11

Q.

So that's okay?

12

A.

My understanding, and what I've been told by Professional

13

Standards Bureau, is that you cannot discuss details, facts,

14

circumstances, content of the investigation, but acknowledging

15

an investigation exists is what I did with Chief Sheridan.

16

Q.

And how you feel about it; is that okay also?

17

A.

Feeling that it needs a quick resolution, yes.

18

Q.

So with an IA pending, then it is sufficient to approach

19

the person that makes the final determination and explain how

20

you feel regarding the open IA.

21

A.

TH
E

ND

OF

15:50:33

15:50:53

IE

I didn't really have a heart-to-heart with Chief Sheridan.

Q.

Understood.

A.

I simply expressed that I wanted a quick resolution for the

FR

23

15:50:16

FO

10

22

15:50:04

24

members of my former team who were under investigation.

25

Q.

And you believed that that was appropriate pursuant to

15:51:10

policy?

A.

Yes.

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

8
9

GB
OW
.C
OM

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 232

I have nothing further.

Mr. Walker.

No questions at this time, Your Honor.


Mr. Como.

Thank you, Your Honor.


CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. COMO:
Q.

Good afternoon, Sergeant.

11

A.

Good afternoon, sir.

12

Q.

Could you please describe for us in a little more detail

13

the briefing that you put on for the HSU deputies about the

14

Court's preliminary injunction order.

15

A.

16

in discussions that I would have had with Lieutenant Sousa, the

17

HSU's immediate chain of command, and direction that I was

18

receiving through Lieutenant Sousa from the chain of command

19

that included direction from the Maricopa County Attorney's

20

Office, it was imperative, given the order, that the HSU knew

21

specifically what we were being told the direction was to

TH
E

15:51:52

IE

ND

OF

When the injunction order was received and I reviewed it,

15:52:13

ensure compliance with the order.

FR

23

15:51:40

FO

10

22

15:51:20

So in an informal briefing, which would have been the

24

most expedient means to conduct it, generally, HSU, we would

25

get the two interdiction squads and the employer sanctions

15:52:33

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 233

squad run by Cesar Brockman together in one room and

disseminate important matters such as that.

discussion, would have been an explanation of exactly what the

order was, and the instructions we were receiving from the

chain of command on how to do business in the Human Smuggling

Unit respective to the order.

Q.

present for that briefing?

A.

That's my recollection, yes.

10

Q.

You also believe that Sergeant Trowbridge, who was the

11

other leader of the interdiction squad, was present?

12

A.

13

co-supervise and to be together in those type of settings.

14

Q.

15

the employer sanctions unit?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

He was present as well, correct?

18

A.

Again, yes, something like that of that magnitude, it would

19

have been common for us all to be in the same room together.

20

Q.

21

training to the HSU deputies, correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

And you believe that all of the deputies within HSU were

FO

15:53:08

It was customary for us to

TH
E

It would have -- yes.

And Deputy Brockman, who I think at the time was running

OF

15:53:26

ND

A.

And you're a hundred percent certain that you provided that

15:53:35

I'm a hundred percent certain that the informal briefing

training occurred, yes.

FR

23

15:52:54

IE

22

Would have been a

24

Q.

Now, someone at the level of the chief of enforcement, like

25

Chief Sands at that time, would not be involved in attending an

15:53:49

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 234

informal briefing such as that, correct?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

There are dozens of similar training sessions like that

informal briefing that you've described every year, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Chief Sands, at his level, is not going to go down and

train, or attend those types of training sessions, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

In fact, you don't recall him ever being present for one of

those informal briefings, correct?

11

A.

Correct.

12

Q.

You've talked a lot today about the chain of command.

13

There's a protocol within an organization like the sheriff's

14

office where you report to someone, who then reports to someone

15

above you, and people you -- below you report to you, correct?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

And it sounds like you try to stick pretty strictly to that

18

chain of command, correct?

19

A.

Correct.

20

Q.

21

preliminary injunction order, correct?

TH
E

OF

15:54:29

Chief Sands never told you to violate the Court's

A.

Correct.

Q.

You've never heard Chief Sands say that he was not going to

FR

23

15:54:15

15:54:40

IE

22

15:54:03

FO

10

ND

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

comply with the preliminary injunction order, correct?

25

A.

Correct.

15:54:52

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 235

Q.

Most of the information that you received about the

preliminary injunction order and how the office was going to

handle it was from Lieutenant Sousa, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Now, you also did speak with Mr. Casey, the attorney, about

it as well, correct?

A.

through the e-mail chain in one of the exhibits we've already

discussed, yes.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I don't have a recollection of a direct conversation, but

Q.

Okay.

Let me ask you a little bit about these kind of

11

training materials that -- that you were putting together.


This was not the first time you had been asked to put
together training materials, right?

14

A.

15

training materials.

16

number of things over my four years in HSU.

17

Q.

18

together training materials for other topics?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

this one?

TH
E

13

ND

12

I believe it was the first time I was asked to put together


15:55:39

OF

I could be wrong, but I was asked to do a

Have you, during the course of your career, though, put

IE

Okay.

Yes, I did.

You're just not sure whether it was before or after

A.

Correct.

Q.

All right.

FR

23

15:55:24

FO

10

22

15:55:07

15:55:52

Describe just a quick overview of the process,

24

from your perspective, of putting together training materials

25

and then how those materials end up in a finished product.

15:56:04

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 236

A.

Well, the training that we would put on in Human Smuggling

Unit was informal briefing training.

I would have conducted, Sergeant Madrid, Sergeant Trowbridge,

Lieutenant Sousa, Cesar Brockman would have conducted.

GB
OW
.C
OM

That's the training that

Over the course of my four years I provided informal

briefing setting training on building clearing tactics, traffic

stop tactics, officer safety issues, other legal concerns in

matters of case law that directly affect how police officers do

their job in the field.


Q.

11

ever put together materials for an E Learning session at any

12

point in your career other than this one?

13

A.

14

may have in reference to the traffic stop scenarios.

15

Q.

16

that, an E Learning program, do you know what the process is?

17

Can you describe it sort of from beginning to end, the typical

18

process for putting that together?

19

A.

20

a rough understanding of it based on my associations with

21

training division personnel.

15:56:47

So what I was getting at is when you've done

15:57:04

OF

All right.

TH
E

Yes, I think -- my recollection as I sit here today is I

ND

I honestly don't know what the typical process is.

I have
15:57:21

But the exact process I -- I

don't know what the exact process is to get a ground level


instruction out through E Learning.

FR

23

Had you

IE

22

Okay, I think I -- we may have miscommunicated.

FO

10

15:56:26

24

Q.

Very well.

Then let's just focus on what you were asked to

25

do and did do in this particular case.

15:57:41

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 237

Do you have Exhibit 189 before you?


A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

evidence.

Exhibit 189.

corner the numbers -- the last numbers are 694.

GB
OW
.C
OM

This is an e-mail chain that's been admitted into

I'd like you to turn to the next-to-the-last page on


It's Bates stamped in the bottom right-hand

Are you there?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Let's take a look at the bottom half of that page, because

this is really where your involvement begins.

11

January 11, 2012, you received an e-mail from


Lieutenant Sousa asking you to put together some training

13

scenarios, correct?

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

And the e-mail was copied to several people, including

16

Mr. Casey and Rollie Seebert.

17

A.

18

training division, to my recollection.

19

Q.

20

someone like Mr. Seebert on a correspondence like this putting

21

together training materials?

OF

15:58:21

Who is Rollie Seebert?

Rollie Seebert was at that time the director of the

15:58:41

IE

ND

Do you know whether it would have been typical to include

A.

Not typical, but in this particular sense with regards to

to the court order, I think yes, that would have been

FR

23

TH
E

12

22

15:58:09

FO

10

15:57:56

24

appropriate to copy him on it.

25

Q.

Now, let's take a look at Lieutenant Sousa's e-mail.

He

15:58:59

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 238

says that he wants you to put together a couple of scenarios,

right way and wrong way, based on Judge Snow's order and your

conversations with Tim Casey.

Do you see that?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

That suggests that either you had spoken with Tim Casey, or

it was planned that you would speak with Mr. Casey about the

order, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

10

Q.

Does that refresh your memory about the fact that you did

11

discuss these scenarios with Mr. Casey?

12

A.

13

conversation with Mr. Casey, but I don't doubt that per the

14

e-mail I likely did contact him and have a conversation about

15

it.

16

Q.

17

some scenarios, correct?

18

A.

Yes, sir.

19

Q.

Then the next step is:

20

you write.

22

So that's step 1, and you're supposed to write up

I will have Tim Casey review what

ND

OF

Okay.

15:59:40

15:59:53

Do you see that?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Step 3 would be to have Chief Sands sign off on it.

24
25

TH
E

Again, sir, I don't have a direct recollection of a

FR

23

15:59:24

IE

21

15:59:14

FO

A.

Do you see that?


Yes, sir.

16:00:00

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 239

Q.

And then step 4 is:

Once all of that is done, we'll get

together a training reference -- training reference to put

together something on an E Learning, right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

So that's basically going to the training department,

right?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Okay.

here?

GB
OW
.C
OM

So four steps is what Lieutenant Sousa's describing

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

Okay.

12

scenarios in a pretty timely way.

13

first page of Exhibit 189, at the very bottom is your e-mail to

14

Lieutenant Sousa dated January 19th, eight days after you

15

received the assignment, correct?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

And then we can turn to the next page, which begins your

18

training scenarios, and they go on for the next two-and-a-half

19

pages, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

16:00:41

ND

OF

TH
E

If we go to actually the

Yes, sir.

16:00:51

IE

Now, in the second page of Exhibit 189 you state that, I

and I have had --

24
25

And it looks like you turned around your training

constructed this in accordance with the many conversations you

FR

23

16:00:20

FO

10

22

16:00:13

A.

Meaning Lieutenant Sousa and yourself, correct?


Yes, sir.

16:01:08

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 240

Q.

-- as well as taking into account the information conveyed

to us both from Tim Casey concerning Judge Snow's order.

GB
OW
.C
OM

You see that?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

All right.

lieutenant, your supervisor, you were being accurate about what

went into your work product?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

And obviously, you wouldn't have told him that you'd had

So I assume that when you wrote this to your

many conversations with him about it if it wasn't true,

11

correct?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

All right.

14

confident that Tim Casey worked with you in putting together

15

these scenarios, right?

16

A.

Yes, sir, that's a fair assessment.

17

Q.

I'm not going to ask you a lot of questions about these

18

scenarios, but I do have a couple of questions.

Scenario 1, you have a scenario where someone's

walking through a neighborhood and they get picked up, and

21

essentially all that can be shown is that the person is here

16:01:55

IE

20

illegally, correct, or suspected?


A.

Yes, sir.

24

Q.

And you say do not detain in that scenario, correct?

25

A.

Yes.

FR

23

16:01:40

OF

TH
E

So in looking at this, you feel pretty

ND

19

22

16:01:30

FO

10

16:01:19

16:02:09

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 241

Q.

Second scenario is a traffic stop for speeding and the

passengers are suspected of being here illegally, but since

there's no criminal offense, again you say do not detain,

correct?

A.

Yes, sir, correct.

Q.

Scenario 3 is a more complicated scenario where basically

there's a passenger in a traffic stop who has an open

container.

call ICE on the passenger because there's a probable cause for

GB
OW
.C
OM

In that situation the scenario says it's okay to

a criminal violation there.

I sort of short-circuited it, but

11

if that's --

12

A.

If I can be permitted a moment --

13

Q.

Absolutely.

14

A.

-- to read the passage.

TH
E

(Pause in proceedings.)

16

THE WITNESS:

OF

15

16:03:14

I'm sorry, sir, could you repeat the

question?

18

BY MR. COMO:

19

Q.

20

ICE in that situation because there was probable cause to

21

believe the passenger had committed a criminal offense.

17

IE

ND

So under Scenario 3 you suggested that it was okay to call

A.

Yes, sir, that's what's articulated in Scenario 3.

Q.

Okay.

FR

23

16:02:43

FO

10

22

16:02:23

16:04:01

And then Scenario 4 is a load vehicle scenario where

24

looks like there's reasonable suspicion -- I'm summarizing

25

again -- to believe that maybe human smuggling has occurred

16:04:26

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 242

here, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

In the first three scenarios you say detain -- do not

detain or detain, but there's no guidance provided under

Scenario 4 as to whether these people should be detained or not

detained.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Do you recall why that was?

A.

I don't recall, sir.

Q.

Do you believe you were leaving that open for further

review by the attorney?

11

A.

I very likely could have.

12

Q.

Now, I note this e-mail only went to Lieutenant Sousa,

13

according to Exhibit 189.

TH
E

14

I'm sorry.

Let me correct that.

Your e-mail went to

Lieutenant Sousa and then copied on it were Tim Casey and

16

Michael Trowbridge, correct?

17

A.

Yes, sir.

18

Q.

And earlier I think you said that Sergeant Trowbridge may

19

have also helped you review these scenarios or work up these

20

scenarios?

21

A.

16:05:08

ND

OF

15

16:05:23

IE

It would have been customary for me to produce this work

and provide it to him for review and feedback prior to


submitting it to Lieutenant Sousa.

FR

23

16:04:51

FO

10

22

16:04:38

24

Q.

Okay.

And so is that probably why you copied him, you

25

think, on that?

16:05:38

A.

Yes.

Q.

And then you copied the attorney as well?

A.

Yes, I did.

Q.

You did not copy Chief Sands, correct?

A.

No, sir, I did not.

Q.

And is that because the chain of command, you're going to

report to Lieutenant Sousa, you're not going to jump over to

Chief Sands?

A.

That is correct.

10

Q.

Okay.

11

in front of you.

12

A.

Yes, sir.

13

Q.

All right.

14

A.

Yes, sir.

15

Q.

You were questioned about it in your deposition, correct?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

The top here we have an e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to

18

yourself, and Brian Jakowinicz is cc'd on the e-mail, correct?

19

A.

Yes, sir.

20

Q.

21

Sousa still your supervisor?

16:06:26

OF

TH
E

Do you recall seeing this e-mail recently?

Do you recall at that time March 27, 2012, was Lieutenant

A.

I don't believe he was, no, sir.

Q.

Was Lieutenant Jakowinicz your supervisor at that time?

24

A.

He -- I believe he was.

25

not sure exactly the date, but at some point around that time

FR

23

16:05:53

FO

Can you please take a look at Exhibit 156, if that's

16:05:43

16:06:46

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

ND

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 243

That's about the time period, I'm


16:07:04

Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 244

Lieutenant Sousa transferred out of HSU and Lieutenant

Jakowinicz replaced him.

Q.

listed e-mails.

the scenarios, Brian can make sure Chiefs Sand -- Sands and

Trombi are good with you getting with training and putting out

the training via E Learning, correct?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Still the same four steps that were anticipated back in

Now, this e-mail states:

GB
OW
.C
OM

We still need to address the

Once Tim -- meaning Tim Casey -- signs off on

January when the project was assigned to you, correct?

11

A.

Yes, sir.

12

Q.

And we're still apparently at step 2, which is trying to

13

get Tim Casey to review these and approve these scenarios,

14

correct?

15

A.

Yes, sir, it would appear so.

16

Q.

Did you ever speak with Mr. Casey after receiving this

17

March 27, 2012, e-mail about the status of his review of these

18

scenarios?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

about it?

TH
E

OF

ND

I don't have a recollection of that conversation, no, sir.


Do you know if Lieutenant Jakowinicz ever spoke with him

A.

That I do not know, no, sir.

Q.

Do you know if Lieutenant Sousa ever spoke with him about

FR

23

16:07:53

16:08:09

IE

22

16:07:38

FO

10

16:07:24

24

it?

25

A.

I do not know, sir.

16:08:21

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 245

Q.

Do you know if Mr. Casey ever reviewed those training

scenarios?

A.

I don't know if he did.

Q.

You never received word back that those training scenarios

had been reviewed by any attorney, correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

So in a progression of the way this training program was to

be rolled out or prepared, to your knowledge, this never got

past step 2, Mr. Casey supposing to review it, correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

Correct.

11

Q.

And step 3, then, with it going back to Chief Sands, to

12

your knowledge, we never got to that step, did we?

13

A.

MR. COMO:
you.

THE COURT:

Thank

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. WANG:

19

Q.

20

that you provided for HSU on the judge's preliminary injunction

21

order.

22

18

ND

Sergeant, Ms. Iafrate asked you about an informal training


16:09:40

Do you recall that?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

24

Q.

Is there any written record of the content of that informal

25

training?

FR

23

16:09:09

Ms. Wang.

IE

17

That's all the questions I have.

OF

16

TH
E

That would be a fair statement, sir.

14
15

16:08:56

FO

10

16:08:35

16:09:52

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 246

A.

I don't believe there is.

Q.

Is there any video record of that informal training?

A.

No.

Q.

Is there a written record of who attended that informal

training?

A.

No.

Q.

Now, Ms. Iafrate also asked you about circumstances in

which an HSU deputy might have had reasonable suspicion about a

violation of Arizona's human smuggling statute.


Do you recall that?
A.

Yes.

12

Q.

You mentioned that you had gotten information about how to

13

apply the judge's preliminary injunction order in the context

14

of load vehicles, is that right?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

And that your understanding was that the Maricopa County

17

Attorney's Office was involved in developing that information,

18

is that correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

Attorney's Office involvement in that information based upon?

16:10:22

OF

16:10:39

ND

That is my understanding, yes.


What was that understanding about Maricopa County

16:10:52

IE
A.

My understanding, and what I received from Lieutenant

Sousa, was that the order had been reviewed by the chain of

FR

23

TH
E

11

22

16:10:03

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

command above Lieutenant Sousa, and that Maricopa County

25

Attorney's Office had also been consulted with, was my

16:11:17

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 247

understanding -- I didn't consult with them, but that was my

understanding -- and that we were given direction that if HSU

were to in the course of duty come across a suspected human

smuggling load vehicle, conduct a traffic stop and obtain

indicators of it being a human smuggling load vehicle, we'd be

able to detain the occupants in furtherance of a criminal

investigation under state law.

Q.

has different divisions within it, correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

And you're aware that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

Are you aware that Mr. Liddy, who is counsel for the

12

sheriff in this case, is an employee of the Maricopa County

13

Attorney's Office?

14

A.

Yes.

15

Q.

And you're also aware that there are other divisions of the

16

MCAO that handle criminal prosecutions, is that right?

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

In fact, MCSO works with the MCAO to make criminal cases,

19

is that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

TH
E

ND

OF

16:12:00

Yes.

16:12:12

IE

Did you have an understanding as to which part of MCAO

contributed to the information you received?


A.

No.

24

Q.

It could have been the criminal prosecutors?

25

A.

I assumed at the time it was our criminal prosecutors that

FR

23

16:11:49

FO

10

22

16:11:34

16:12:25

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 248

prosecuted our human load vehicles, but I don't know for

certain.

Q.

on the subject, is that right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And they also would be interested in this topic because

they still had to prosecute those human smuggling cases,

correct?

A.

Yes.

10

Q.

Is that why you made that assumption?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

Now, I want to drill down a little bit on what Ms. Iafrate

13

was asking you about.

14

then I'll ask you some questions about it, if I may.

GB
OW
.C
OM

They were the ones that would have had the legal knowledge

FO

If HSU deputies pulled over a vehicle with four


occupants, okay, one driver and three passengers, and developed

17

probable cause to believe that the driver and the front

18

passenger, the front seat passenger, were violating the Arizona

19

state human smuggling statute, but only had information that

20

the two other passengers were illegally in the United States,

21

first let me set out that hypothetical.

ND

IE

16:13:31

Do you understand that?

A.

Yes, ma'am.

24

Q.

When you gave the informal training to HSU, did your

25

training address that situation?

FR

23

16:13:08

OF

16

22

16:12:47

I'm going to give you a hypothetical and

TH
E

15

16:12:39

16:13:46

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 249

A.

Yes, I believe it did.

Q.

And what did you train on for that situation?

A.

Again, with instructions I had received, we were able to

detain all the occupants to conduct more in-depth interviews at

the HSU offices, after Miranda rights, to further try to

determine if a human smuggling crime is being committed under

the state law.

Q.

transported to Enforcement Support, could take a matter of

GB
OW
.C
OM

And those further investigations, once people were

hours?

11

A.

12

it would probably take at least a few hours.

13

Q.

14

Ms. Iafrate, you indicated that you assumed that Lieutenant

15

Sousa would run your draft training scenarios by Chief

16

MacIntyre.

17

A.

Yes.

18

Q.

Why did you assume that?

19

A.

Because my understanding at the time was that he --

20

Director MacIntyre was the person who was running the legal

21

opinions rather through the county attorney or handling matters

Depending on the size of the vehicle; with four occupants

Sir, in response to a question from

TH
E

All right.

16:14:41

IE

ND

OF

Do you recall that testimony?

16:14:57

of that sort at that time.

FR

23

16:14:23

FO

10

22

16:14:06

When I get asked to -- I get an order to look up

24

information, provide information, it's not an unlawful order.

25

It's not an illegal order.

It's not unethical or immoral.

16:15:14

Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 250

Everybody knows I don't have a law degree, I have a -- I'm a

sworn police officer.

That's it.

GB
OW
.C
OM

So when I provide this information, I'm not providing

a legal opinion; I'm providing information that I would assume

would process up the chain of command and be appropriately

addressed by a legal team.

Q.

Sir, I just have one or two more questions.

8
9

You testified about an argument you had with the

sheriff about a month after the Court's preliminary injunction


order.

Do you recall that?

11

A.

Yes.

12

Q.

And Ms. Iafrate asked you some questions about how it came

13

to be that you called the sheriff on the phone.

TH
E

14

Do you recall that?

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

Now, you called the sheriff because Lieutenant Sousa asked

17

you to, is that correct?

18

A.

19

chain of command that was processed to me.

20

Q.

21

the sheriff came at Lieutenant Sousa's behest or at the

OF

16:15:56

It was a direction that he had received through the

ND

Yes.

IE

Was it your understanding that the request that you call

sheriff's behest?
A.

FR

23

16:15:45

FO

10

22

16:15:29

The sheriff's.

24

MS. WANG:

25

THE COURT:

All right.

That's all I have.

Sergeant Palmer, I just wanted to ask a

16:16:09

Palmer, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

question, and then if you have a follow-up and then we'll go

through the usual lineup, or maybe two questions.

GB
OW
.C
OM

251

EXAMINATION

BY THE COURT:

Q.

I wanted to make sure I understand your testimony.

I think in response to Ms. Wang's redirect you

indicated that based on the instruction you received in your

preliminary training, you taught these informal training

scenarios you did with HSU regarding this Court's preliminary


injunction order.

11

Based on the instruction you received, you told HSU

12

officers that they could detain everyone in a human smuggling

13

load, is that correct?

14

A.

Yes, Your Honor, you did.

15

Q.

I just don't understand, and I guess I'm going to take, to

16

the best of your recollection, where did you -- where did that

17

instruction come from?

18

A.

19

and my co-sergeants from Lieutenant Sousa, and he would have

20

received it through the chain of command above him.

21

Q.

TH
E

OF

16:17:18

ND

The instruction would have been directly received to myself

16:17:36

I believe you indicated early on in your -- in your initial

testimony to Ms. Wang that you never received any training on


how to be a supervisor over deputies, is that correct?

FR

23

Did I understand that correctly?

IE

22

16:17:01

FO

10

16:16:43

24

A.

That's -- I believe I was asked about supervising over HSU

25

squads, that's correct.

But there was a supervisor's academy I

16:17:58

Palmer, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15

attended in 2006.

Q.

And how long did that last?

A.

I believe it was a 40-hour class.

Q.

A 40-hour class?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

So a week?

A.

Yes, sir.

Q.

Was there any training on how to deal with personnel

problems among deputies that you were supervising?

GB
OW
.C
OM

252

A.

Yes, sir.

11

Q.

Was there any training on when and how to conduct

12

administrative investigations?

13

A.

Yes, sir.

14

Q.

Was there any training on when and how to refer to --

15

someone to what then would have been Internal Affairs?

16

A.

Yes, sir.

17

Q.

And when did you receive this training?

18

A.

When I promoted June-July of 2006.

19

Q.

Did you have any written materials that you received as a

20

result of this training?

21

A.

24
25

TH
E

OF

ND

16:18:45

My recollection is that yes, there were training

materials -Q.

You don't have any of them that remain in your possession?

A.

I don't know if I do or not, Your Honor.

FR

23

16:18:31

IE

22

16:18:18

FO

10

16:18:12

THE COURT:

Thank you.

16:19:00

Palmer-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 253

Any follow-ups?

MS. WANG:

THE COURT:

MS. IAFRATE:

Ms. Iafrate.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Not from me Your Honor.

Just a few, Your Honor.


RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MS. IAFRATE:

Q.

cross-examination of you I asked you where you got the

preliminary injunction?

Sergeant Palmer, do you recall that when I started my

A.

Yes.

11

Q.

And you didn't recall, but you do recall you read it,

12

right?

13

A.

Yes.

14

Q.

And I asked you if you understood it, and you said yes.

15

A.

Yes.

16

Q.

The hypothetical that Ms. Wang gave you where there were

17

two occupants where there was probable cause and two occupants

18

where there -- the only allegation was that they were

19

potentially here illegally in the United States and you said

20

that all of them could be detained, that's in violation of the

21

preliminary injunction, correct?

TH
E

OF

16:19:24

ND

IE
A.

FR

23

16:19:17

FO

10

22

16:19:08

16:19:42

As I sit here today, yes, ma'am.


MS. IAFRATE:

24

THE COURT:

25

Mr. Walker?

Nothing further.

Thank you.
16:19:51

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 254

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

MR. COMO:

Nothing, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

You may step down.

Next witness.

MR. YOUNG:

executive Chief Brian Sands.

Mr. Como?

GB
OW
.C
OM

No questions, Your Honor.

Thank you, Sergeant.

Your Honor, plaintiffs call former

MR. McDONALD:

Your Honor, I wanted to again mention

that we're still having problems with this computer.


unable to follow the exhibits, the sheriff and I.

11

again.

up here?

14

It went out

All right.

And then, Mr. Walker, would you be willing to share


your screen so that Mr. McDonald and the sheriff can see any of

16

the exhibits, and we'll try and get you back functioning as

17

soon as we can.

22

ND

spell your last name.


THE WITNESS:

16:20:42

BRIAN SANDS,

examined and testified as follows:

24
25

Brian Sands, S-a-n-d-s.

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

FR

23

State your full name for the record and

IE

21

THE CLERK:

18

20

16:20:23

OF

15

19

16:20:11

Can I have you get Brian back

TH
E

13

THE COURT:

We're

FO

10

12

16:19:59

BY MR. YOUNG:

DIRECT EXAMINATION
16:21:27

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 255

Q.

Good afternoon, Chief Sands.

A.

Hello.

Q.

Could you describe since December 2011, briefly, your

history and positions and responsibilities with respect to the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

A.

From 2011?

Q.

Yes.

A.

Yes.

subordinate commanders, one of Dave Trombi, Chief Trombi, Chief

11

Q.

12

some point.

13

A.

14

in July of 2013.

FO

Munnell, and Chief Chagolla.

Can you take us through the present?

15

I'd like to get the whole chronology.

And well, I was over those positions until I retired

MR. YOUNG:

Now, I'd like to have displayed to you

OF

(Handing exhibit to witness).

18

THE WITNESS:

Thank you.

THE CLERK:

BY MR. YOUNG:

20

Q.

21

shown, but this is the full unredacted version.

ND

19

IE

I think a redacted version of this e-mail was earlier

16:22:52

If you turn to the page with Bates number 671 at the

bottom, you'll see it's an e-mail from Tim Casey to you and a

FR

23

16:22:17

Exhibit 187, which is an e-mail dated December 23, 2011.

17

22

16:22:00

I know you retired at

TH
E

Yes.

16:21:38

I was over the enforcement command and I had three

10

16

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

number of other people at the MCSO.

25

Do you see that?

16:23:10

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 256

A.

Yes.

Q.

And it refers to the Court's order of December 23, 2011?

A.

Correct.

MR. YOUNG:

MR. COMO:

MR. WALKER:
It's on the screen.

MR. YOUNG:

I'm going to move to admit Exhibit 187.


No objection.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I haven't seen the document, Your Honor.

I wonder whether Ms. Romanow could give

Mr. Walker -(Pause in proceedings.)

11

MR. WALKER:

12

MS. IAFRATE:

13

THE COURT:

14

(Exhibit No. 187 is admitted into evidence.)

No objection, Your Honor.


No objection, Your Honor.

TH
E

All right.

Exhibit 187 is admitted.

15

BY MR. YOUNG:

16

Q.

17

you had in the period very shortly after the Court's

18

preliminary injunction was issued.

19

Mr. Casey, correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

16:24:14

You had a discussion with

ND

OF

I'm going to ask you, Chief Sands, about some discussions

Correct.

And that discussion was perhaps within hours after

IE

Okay.

16:24:25

the preliminary injunction order was issued?


A.

I believe so.

24

Q.

What did you and Mr. Casey discuss?

25

A.

The -- basically, the court order, briefly.

FR

23

16:23:59

FO

10

22

16:23:28

And I recall

16:24:39

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 257

my -- my question to Mr. Casey at the time was:

How does this

affect our -- our Human Smuggling Unit?

that we should curtail the saturation patrols.

Q.

anything else that you and Mr. Casey discussed in that

conversation?

A.

smuggling unit, he made -- he made the statement that he felt

that they could still perform their duties.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And he also mentioned

And did you have an understanding of -- do you recall

No.

When -- when the issue was mentioned about the human

Q.

And that was to investigate the state crime of human

11

smuggling, correct?

12

A.

I believe so, yeah.

13

Q.

Did you understand from Mr. Casey what he was going to do

14

next after talking to you?

15

A.

TH
E

He said he was going to --

OF

17

MS. IAFRATE:

16:25:47

Your Honor, this is attorney-client

privilege, the conversations that are being had.


MR. YOUNG:

Well, Your Honor, this is what Mr. Sands

18

told the monitor, and I don't think there was an objection at

20

that time from Ms. Iafrate's office.

21

already been given.

IE

FR

23

ND

19

22

24
25

16:25:32

FO

10

16

16:25:15

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

And the testimony's

16:26:06

Over objection, Your Honor.

When was the testimony given over

objection, Ms. Iafrate?


MS. IAFRATE:

Would be during his deposition, Your

16:26:25

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 258

Honor.

MR. YOUNG:

Actually, Your Honor, I don't think that

GB
OW
.C
OM

he actually testified to that during his deposition.

say it to the monitor, and I think that he should be able to

say it here since the privilege to that conversation has been

waived.

He did

There is a broader waiver question which we'll

probably bring up to you at some later point after today, but

for this particular question I think there is no privilege at


this time that remains.

11

THE COURT:

Was -- and I believe that I did provide

12

that you can have lawyers present during Mr. Sands' interview

13

by the monitor.

TH
E

Was there any objection made at that time?

14

MS. IAFRATE:

15

THE COURT:

No, Your Honor.

All right.

Then you may answer the

question.

17

BY MR. YOUNG:

18

Q.

19

understanding from Mr. Casey as to what he was going to do

20

after talking to you?

21

A.

16:27:10

Did you have an

ND

So my question, Chief Sands, was:

He was going to speak with the chief deputy and the

IE

Yes.

16:27:20

sheriff.
Q.

FR

23

OF

16

22

16:26:57

FO

10

16:26:42

Now, moving on to another conversation, did you discuss the

24

injunction with Deputy Chief MacIntyre in the period after it

25

was issued?

16:27:35

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 259

A.

Yes, I -- I remember I was copying something on the copy

machine and he approach -- Chief MacIntyre approached me and

asked me if I had received the injunction.

he further asked me, well, have you -- have you briefed the

deputies?

with Tim Casey on that.

Q.

working with the deputies?

Chief MacIntyre, did you know why it was or who had -- who had

GB
OW
.C
OM

And I said yes, and

And I told him that we were going to have -- work

And did you know what it was that caused Mr. Casey to be

When you had this conversation with

caused Mr. Casey to be planning to work with the deputies?

11

A.

12

MacIntyre, I had conversation with Sheriff Arpaio, and present

13

was -- was Chief Deputy Sheridan.

14

discussion about this injunction had came up.

15

that we were going to curtail the saturation patrols, and Chief

16

Deputy Sheridan mentioned that Casey was going to work with the

17

deputies on -- on disseminating the information.

18

Q.

19

that discussion.

20

talking about the injunction.

21

shown Exhibit 67.

24
25

And at that time the


The sheriff said
16:28:57

OF

TH
E

Well, sometime before the conversation with Chief

I'm going to ask you a few more questions about


But first thing is I want to make sure we're

IE

ND

All right.

I'm going to ask that you be

16:29:21

We've had some preliminary discussions, and I think at

least Ms. Iafrate has stated there's no objection to the

FR

23

16:28:27

FO

10

22

16:27:58

introduction of Exhibit 67, and I would move its admission.


MR. COMO:

No objection, Your Honor.

16:29:51

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 260

MR. WALKER:

Is Exhibit 67 the injunction, preliminary

injunction?

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. YOUNG:

that contains the injunction.

MR. WALKER:

THE COURT:

(Exhibit No. 67 is admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

It is the Court's December 23, 2011 order

No objection.

Exhibit 67 is admitted.

Chief Sands, you mentioned a discussion among you, Sheriff

Arpaio, and Chief Deputy Sheridan.

11

conversation took place?

12

A.

In the sheriff's office.

13

Q.

And as precisely as you can, please tell us when the

14

conversation took place.

15

A.

16

was issued; relatively soon, as I remember.

17

Q.

18

discussions that he had had with Mr. Casey?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

you did have, about whether Chief Sheridan had had a discussion

TH
E

Did Chief Sheridan say anything about any

ND

No.

16:30:27

Okay.

16:30:13

OF

I can't recall exactly, but it was sometime after the order

16:30:43

IE

Did you have an understanding, based on the discussion that

with Mr. Casey?


A.

FR

23

Can you tell us where that

FO

10

22

16:30:05

I felt from the course of conversation that he had, or

24

possibly the sheriff had discussed it with him.

25

I wasn't present.

I don't know,
16:31:01

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 261

Q.

What was it that gave you that impression?

A.

Well, his comment about having Casey, Tim Casey, give

instruction to the deputies.

Q.

should do in terms of informing people about the injunction?

A.

the -- to the order, and at the time he said that we're going

to do what our attorneys say.

Q.

GB
OW
.C
OM

Did you say anything to the sheriff about what the MCSO

I told him we should tell all the deputies relative to

Just brief the HSU deputies.

Now, when you said that it should go out to all the

deputies, what did you mean by that?

11

talking about?

12

A.

All the deputies in the office.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

the whole department should not receive the injunction, isn't

15

that right?

16

A.

17

to do.

18

Q.

19

that correct?

20

A.

21

Q.

16:31:45

TH
E

And Sheriff Arpaio told you that his view was that

16:32:02

OF

Yes, based on what he said was doing what the attorney said

ND

And that was simply to put it out to the HSU deputies, is

That's the way I understood it.

16:32:16

IE

Did the sheriff discuss with you, other than what you've

already said, his reasons for not wanting to send it to


deputies in others parts of the office?

FR

23

Which deputies are you

FO

10

22

16:31:22

24

A.

No, I don't believe so.

25

Q.

What is your view of what the sheriff told you about who

16:32:32

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 262

should get notification of the preliminary injunction?

A.

the training into play, along with Tim Casey, regardless of

what the comment was by the sheriff.

Q.

you question that decision, is that right?

Okay.

When I walked away I felt that we put

GB
OW
.C
OM

I'm not really sure.

Well, you told the monitor staff that to this day

MS. IAFRATE:

Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.

THE WITNESS:

Per -- oh, sorry.

THE COURT:

THE WITNESS:

What I told the monitor was my personal

11

opinion.

12

BY MR. YOUNG:

13

Q.

14

have gone out to the entirety of the MCSO.

15

thing you told the sheriff, right?

16

A.

Correct.

17

Q.

And you thought that deputies throughout the MCSO should

18

have seen the order and should have been given an explanation

19

of the meaning of that order, is that right?

20

A.

21

Q.

16:33:34

ND

OF

TH
E

That's the same

Correct.

16:33:49

But that did not happen, correct?

A.

I believe it did not happen.

Q.

You also discussed the preliminary injunction with

FR

23

Well, your personal opinion was that the message should

IE

22

16:33:21

FO

10

Overruled.

16:33:01

24

Lieutenant Sousa, is that right?

25

A.

Correct.

16:34:04

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 263

Q.

Please tell us where and when that conversation took place.

A.

It was sometime after that conversation I had with the

sheriff with Chief Sheridan present.

telephone conversation.

deputies in HSU had been briefed, and his comment to me was he

had talked to them, but they hadn't talked to the -- to the

deputies.

was the chief deputy's direction that Casey would formulate

some training for the HSU deputies and asked him if --

GB
OW
.C
OM

As I remember it was a

I was following up to see if the

And I remembered telling Lieutenant Sousa that it

Q.

Let me ask you a clarifying question.

I think -- is it

11

correct that you asked Lieutenant Sousa whether Mr. Casey had

12

talked to the deputies, and Lieutenant Sousa told you that

13

Mr. Casey had talked to Lieutenant Sousa, but had not talked to

14

the deputies, is that correct?

15

A.

Correct.

16

Q.

And what was your response to that?

17

A.

I told Sousa that that was direction from the chief deputy,

18

and that if -- if he needed me to call Mr. Casey, I would do

19

it.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

16:35:16

ND

And why did you offer to call Mr. Casey?

16:35:31

IE

Because I wanted to make sure it was done.

Q.

What was Lieutenant Sousa's response?

A.

He told me no, I will -- I will take care of it.

24

Q.

And then, to your knowledge, what happened after that in

25

that regard?

FR

23

16:34:56

FO

10

22

16:34:26

16:35:49

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 264

A.

I can't remember, really.

Q.

Okay.

going to take care of it, as he told you he would do?

A.

I would hope so, yes.

Q.

Now, at some point Lieutenant Sousa was replaced as head of

the HSU by Lieutenant Jakowinicz, is that correct?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Did you ever discuss the preliminary injunction with

Lieutenant Jakowinicz?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Well, did you believe that Lieutenant Sousa was

A.

11

should read it and study it.

12

Q.

13

the preliminary injunction with Mr. Casey?

14

A.

I don't -- I don't remember that, no.

15

Q.

How long did your discussion with Lieutenant Jakowinicz

16

about the injunction last?

17

A.

Just a few minutes.

18

Q.

Was it in person or by phone?

19

A.

It was in person.

20

Q.

21

A.

TH
E

OF

16:36:40

ND

Q.

Was that after he became the supervisor over the HSU?

16:36:50

Yeah, or it was sometime during the transition.


Okay.

Now, I want to ask you a little bit about the

appellate process with respect to the injunction and how

FR

23

16:36:17

Did you tell Lieutenant Jakowinicz that he should review

IE

22

I did tell him about the preliminary injunction and that he

FO

10

16:36:03

24

decisions about appealing things like that were made within the

25

MCSO.

16:37:13

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 265

Were you involved in any discussions about appealing


the injunction?

A.

I don't believe so.

Q.

Who made the decisions for the MCSO about appeals in cases

like that?

A.

that decision.

Q.

sheriff's decisions to make, correct?

GB
OW
.C
OM

Usually, counsel, and it's usually the sheriff that makes

Decisions about appeals of judgments and orders are the

A.

Normally, yes.

11

Q.

Did you ever hear during staff meetings the sheriff discuss

12

what the MCSO would do in terms of appealing a judgment?

13

A.

No, I really can't recall.

14

Q.

Do you recall answering the following question during your

15

deposition, which was on April 1?

16

your deposition be given to you if you don't have it.

17

the April 1 deposition, and counsel, it's page 36, line 16.

18

Your Honor, may I hand the witness the deposition?

24
25

TH
E

This is

You may.
(Handing the witness deposition).

16:38:51

BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.

Now, if you go to paragraph -- no, page 36, line 16, you're

asked this question:

FR

23

MR. YOUNG:

16:38:19

IE

22

And I'm going to ask that

OF

THE COURT:

ND

19

21

16:37:51

FO

10

20

16:37:30

"Did those issues ever come up in any staff meetings

that -- that you participated in?

16:39:23

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 266

"Answer:

That -- it might have come up.

I just don't

remember.

continually, and -- and it was typical to hear the sheriff say,

we're going to appeal that, we're going to appeal that.

can't say with any certainty or recollection him saying that

directly about this order or this lawsuit.

It was -- there was a lot of legal issues going on

"Question:

GB
OW
.C
OM

But I

When the sheriff would say in -- in your

presence, we're going to appeal this or that, would that be the

subject of discussion among the senior staff about whether that


was that good idea or -- a good thing or a bad thing to do, or

11

would he just announce his decisions?


"Answer:

In staff, he would announce -- he would --

he would -- no, there was -- I don't remember any collective

14

type of discussion that I was privy to on any legal matter

15

about an appeal.

16

conversation with counsel with."

TH
E

13

And it was typically something that he had

You see those answers?


A.

Yes.

19

Q.

Were those -- are those answers accurate?

20

A.

21

Q.

24
25

ND
Yes.

16:40:32

IE

I want to ask you now about a situation where an MCSO

officer encounters someone whom the officer believes to be an


illegal immigrant, but where it's determined that there is no

FR

23

18

22

16:40:18

OF

17

16:39:58

FO

10

12

16:39:42

crime, no state crime to be pursued.


Before the preliminary injunction was issued, that is,

16:41:04

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 267

before December 23, 2011, did you have a belief about whether

the MCSO had the authority to detain people who were not going

to be charged criminally so that they could be transported to

ICE or the Border Patrol?

A.

I'm sorry, are you stating prior to the injunction?

Q.

Yes.

that regard?

A.

Yes.

Q.

What was your view?

10

A.

Well, the view was, is that we could turn them over to

11

Border Patrol or ICE.

12

Q.

13

authority?

14

A.

No.

15

Q.

Okay.

16

deposition, the same deposition, actually be played on video.

17

This is your December -- your April 1, 2015, video, page 76,

18

line 4, through page 77, line 8, and this is Sands video

19

number 2:

22

FO

16:41:40

TH
E

16:41:59

OF

Well, I'm going to ask that a portion of your

(Deposition testimony played as follows:)


"Question:

16:42:22

"Answer:

Backup plan with the sheriff?


No.

I had discussed that with him prior to

the injunction --

FR

23

Did you have a view on what authority the MCSO had in

ND

21

16:41:27

Did you have the view that the MCSO did not have that

IE

20

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

"Question:

25

"Answer:

Okay.
-- that I had a problem with the -- with the

16:42:41

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 268

premise of detaining somebody that long to turn them over to

the Border Patrol, unless we were in close proximity of the

Border Patrol.

I had a problem with the detention part.

But to drive somebody halfway across the state,

"Question:

"Answer:

GB
OW
.C
OM

And what was your problem with that?

My -- and this is when we didn't have the

287(g) either before or after.

"Question:

"Answer:

Yes.

And my problem with that is detaining

somebody for that length of time without a response from the

11

agency that's going to take jurisdiction.

12

Patrol not being close by, and driving them to Nogales or

13

driving them to Casa Grande, I just -- I didn't like the idea.


"Question:

Okay.

Was it your belief that once the

287(g) authority was taken away in 2009, that your office no

16

longer had the authority to enforce the federal civil

17

immigration law by keeping those people for that length of

18

time?

19

20

shouldn't be conducted."

21

BY MR. YOUNG:

Yeah, I -- I personally believed that that

ND

"Answer:

IE

16:44:08

Q.

Chief Sands, is that testimony correct?

A.

Yes, I was confused, I believe, was your first questions

FR

23

16:43:46

OF

15

22

16:43:24

And with the Border

TH
E

FO

10

14

16:43:06

24

that led up to doing that.

25

Q.

Okay.

Well, I apologize for that.

I'll try to be clearer

16:44:17

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 269

from now on.

The belief that you just described, or that was

GB
OW
.C
OM

described in the video that was just played from your

deposition, did you discuss that belief with Sheriff Arpaio

prior to the preliminary injunction being issued?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay.

discussion of your view on that issue?

A.

I think he disagreed with me.

10

Q.

Now, the December 23, 2011, injunction issued by this Court

11

confirmed that earlier view that you had, correct?

12

A.

Correct.

13

Q.

Now I want to shift to the time period after the

14

preliminary injunction was issued.

15

on this topic with Sheriff Arpaio?

16

A.

On the topic of detaining people?

17

Q.

Yes, the topic that was just the subject of the video from

18

your deposition that we watched.

19

A.

20

the injunction meant that if we detain somebody as suspects in

21

a certain state crime, that if they weren't arrested they were

16:45:18

OF

TH
E

FO

16:44:56

Did you have a discussion

I had a discussion with him early on that I believe

ND

I did.

16:45:38

going to have to be released.


Q.

FR

23

And what did Sheriff Arpaio say in response to your

IE

22

16:44:33

And this discussion, just to be clear, was after the

24

injunction, correct?

25

A.

Correct.

16:45:59

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 270

Q.

Do you recall approximately how long after the injunction?

A.

No.

exactly.

Q.

place?

A.

In his office.

Q.

This -- you earlier described a three-way conversation

among yourself, Chief Sheridan, and Sheriff Arpaio.

discussion with Sheriff Arpaio that we're discussing now

Okay.

GB
OW
.C
OM

I want to say it was very soon, but I can't remember

And where did this discussion with the sheriff take

This other

probably happened a few days after that earlier three-way

11

discussion, is that right?

12

A.

I believe so, yes.

13

Q.

How long did that discussion just with Sheriff Arpaio last?

14

A.

It was just a few minutes.

15

Q.

Now, I think you referred to this as a drop-house scenario,

16

is that correct, that you discussed with Sheriff Arpaio?

17

A.

I did.

18

Q.

Could you describe that scenario in more detail?

19

A.

I believe what I said was that --

22

24
25

TH
E

ND

OF

16:46:45

Objection, Your Honor, relevance.

This

16:47:02

goes to not the members of the defined class.

FR

23

MS. IAFRATE:

IE

21

16:46:30

FO

10

20

16:46:12

THE COURT:

Overruled.

THE WITNESS:

The scenario that I described was of

deputies at a drop house -I'm sorry, can you ask that question again?

16:47:21

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 271

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

discussion with the sheriff.

was that you described to the sheriff.

A.

cause to arrest somebody under state charges, anyone else that

was there was going to have to be released.

Q.

to the ICE or to the Border Patrol?

You described a drop-house scenario in your

GB
OW
.C
OM

Yes.

Please tell us what that scenario

The scenario was is that once we developed enough probable

And when you say "release," would that include taking them

A.

No, I re -- I remember my discussion was "released."

11

Q.

So you told the sheriff that under your view in that

12

scenario, the MCSO must let the person go and not take them to

13

either ICE or the Border Patrol, is that right?

14

A.

Correct.

15

Q.

It was your belief at that time that this Court's December

16

23, 2011, preliminary injunction required such release, is that

17

right?

18

A.

I believe so, yes.

19

Q.

Okay.

20

him this view that you just described, you specifically

21

mentioned the preliminary injunction to the sheriff, correct?

TH
E

OF

16:48:16

16:48:32

IE

ND

In your discussion with the sheriff where you gave

A.

Correct.

Q.

What was the sheriff's reaction to the statement that you

FR

23

16:47:55

FO

10

22

16:47:31

24

made to him?

25

A.

He disagreed with me.

16:48:50

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 272

Q.

Did your mentioning of the preliminary injunction to the

sheriff have any effect at all on the sheriff's view, as he

expressed it to you?

A.

I don't believe so.

Q.

When you say the sheriff disagreed with you, did you mean

to say that the sheriff indicated that he thought that the MCSO

should continue to detain people who are not going to be

criminally charged who are believed to be illegal immigrants

and/or take them to ICE or the Border Patrol?

GB
OW
.C
OM

A.

No, I don't think it was that in-depth a conversation.

11

Q.

When you mentioned the injunction to the sheriff, did he

12

indicate any concern that you can recall about whether he

13

should be doing anything to make sure he complied with the

14

injunction?

15

A.

No, I don't believe so, no.

16

Q.

In your discussion with the sheriff, did he say anything

17

about how he would make sure he complied with the injunction?

18

A.

No, I don't believe so.

19

Q.

Did the sheriff tell you that he wanted to make sure he

20

complied with the injunction?

21

A.

TH
E

OF

ND

Q.

16:50:10

I don't believe that was in that conversation, no.


When you gave the sheriff your view of what was required

under the injunction and said the people in that drop-house

FR

23

16:49:50

IE

22

16:49:30

FO

10

16:49:05

24

scenario with no state charges should be released, did the

25

sheriff say, we'd better go talk to a lawyer about that?

16:50:29

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 273

A.

I don't think so, no.

Q.

Did the sheriff, in your recollection, mention any opinion

or advice from an attorney as support for his view?

A.

I don't remember anything like that.

Q.

Did the sheriff ever tell you, that you can recall, that he

was going to get legal advice on the issue of what to do with

people believed to be illegal immigrants, but for whom no state

charges were going to be brought?

A.

I don't believe so, no.

10

Q.

Did the sheriff indicate to you that he would want to

11

consult with anyone else on that issue?

12

A.

I don't think it came up, no; I don't recall it coming up.

13

Q.

What was your response after the sheriff disagreed with

14

you?

15

A.

I --

16

Q.

What did you say, if anything, to the sheriff?

17

A.

I don't think I said anything more.

18

Q.

Can you remember any time at all at any time when the

19

sheriff ever told you directly that he wanted to comply with

20

the injunction?

21

A.

16:51:18

OF

TH
E

FO

16:51:03

ND

Q.

16:51:36

No, I don't recall anything like that.


Can you recall any steps that the sheriff himself took to

make sure that the MCSO complied with the injunction?

FR

23

16:50:49

IE

22

GB
OW
.C
OM

24

A.

No.

25

Q.

Do you recall any meeting or discussion where the sheriff

16:51:52

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 274

told anyone else in the MCSO that the MCSO should make sure to

follow the injunction?

A.

No.

Q.

Now, it appears, would you agree with me, that the MCSO

acted in a way the sheriff wanted in that drop-house scenario,

and not the way that you wanted, is that correct?

A.

I -- I would say that's -- that is correct, yes.

Q.

I'm going to ask that you be shown Exhibit 189, which is a

series of training scenarios that Sergeant Palmer has just

GB
OW
.C
OM

testified about.

11

the training scenarios that he drafted, correct?

12

A.

I did, yes.

13

Q.

Do you ever recall seeing these training scenarios that --

14

A.

I don't recall seeing them, no.

15

Q.

Do you recall ever talking to anyone about the training

16

scenarios?

17

A.

No, I don't recall that.

18

Q.

Do you know why they were never used?

19

A.

No.

20

Q.

21

training scenarios should not be used and you were not aware of

TH
E

ND

OF

16:53:07

Is it possible that someone other than you said that the

16:53:17

that?
A.

No, I don't know of anything like that.

24

Q.

Okay.

25

the MCSO could have said, or someone, could have said or

FR

23

16:52:48

IE

22

You heard Sergeant Palmer's testimony about

FO

10

16:52:14

Well, is it possible that someone else somewhere in


16:53:36

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 275

decided not to use the training scenarios, and you just were

not in on that decision?


MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

Is that possible?

Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

Sustained.

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

I am just referring to Scenarios 1 and 2 as examples -- that

where the MCSO encountered someone who was believed to be an

illegal immigrant, but for whom no state charges could be

Now, you understand from the training scenarios that -- and

brought, that those people should be released.

11

Is that your understanding of the scenarios that were


drafted by Sergeant Palmer?

13

A.

As I read them before, I believe you're correct, yes.

14

Q.

All right.

15

would like to, in order to answer my next question.

Well, feel free to read them again now, if you

Did your discussion with Sheriff Arpaio indicate to


you that the sheriff would not have agreed with

18

Sergeant Palmer's training scenarios?

17

MS. IAFRATE:

ND

19
20

24
25

I think as worded I am going to sustain

16:55:01

that objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.

FR

23

THE COURT:

Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

IE

22

16:54:38

OF

16

TH
E

12

21

16:54:23

FO

10

16:53:52

Based on your discussions with Sheriff Arpaio, do you have

a -- well, let me withdraw that and ask another question.


Did you discuss with Sheriff Arpaio the basic idea

16:55:22

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 276

that is behind Sergeant Palmer's training scenario, that is,

where you have someone who's believed to be an illegal

immigrant, and you have no basis for state charges, you should

let them go?

GB
OW
.C
OM

You discussed that with Sheriff Arpaio, that basic

fact pattern, correct?

A.

Right.

Q.

And your position in your discussion with the sheriff is

the same as what Sergeant Palmer set forth in his training

Early on I did, yes.

scenarios, correct?

11

A.

Similar, yes.

12

Q.

And Sheriff Arpaio disagreed with your position, is that

13

right?

14

A.

15

recall.

16

Q.

17

think that the sheriff might have had a problem with those

18

training scenarios based on political considerations, correct?

19

A.

20

Q.

21

to Sergeant Palmer's training scenarios, correct?

24
25

TH
E

16:56:13

OF

ND

I believe he had political considerations as a sheriff.

FR

23

I don't know how he felt about it later, I can't

Now, based on your discussions with Sheriff Arpaio, you

And those might have caused a problem for him with respect

IE

22

Early on.

16:56:00

FO

10

16:55:43

MS. IAFRATE:
MR. YOUNG:

16:56:34

Objection, Your Honor, speculation.

This is based on his discussions with the

sheriff, Your Honor.


THE COURT:

Are you asking him what the sheriff said?

16:56:54

Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 277

I'm asking him a question that is his

conclusion based on what the sheriff did say.

THE COURT:

Sustained.

GB
OW
.C
OM

MR. YOUNG:

BY MR. YOUNG:

Q.

was and is a political person who has to be responsive to his

constituents, correct?

A.

I believe that, yes, sir.

Q.

And the sheriff did have, to your knowledge, based on your

In your experience at the MCSO, Chief Sands, the sheriff

time at the agency, political beliefs on immigration issues,

11

and did respond to that base and the political power structure

12

regarding those issues, is that correct?

13

A.

TH
E

I believe so, yes.

14

THE COURT:

Mr. Young, again, I don't want to

interrupt you, but I am looking for a place to end for the day,

16

so --

17

MR. YOUNG:

Actually, Your Honor, subject to follow-up

based on others' questions, I have come to the end of my direct

19

examination.

ND

All right.

That sounds like a good place

16:57:57

to end for the day.


Here's what I would like to do.

I would like, A, for

the parties to exchange exhibits tonight so that we can

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

22

18

21

16:57:46

OF

15

20

16:57:27

FO

10

16:57:09

24

stipulate to exhibits in the morning.

I would like the parties

25

to exchange who they're actually wanting to call as witnesses

16:58:15

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 278

and to e-mail me that list tonight.

I'm going to then talk with the parties beginning at

GB
OW
.C
OM

8:30 tomorrow morning about setting time limits for the

testimony for this week's testimony, keeping in mind that we

have a continuation date and we may explore other dates when

the parties may be available, if it's necessary, but I'm going

to set time limits.

8
9

And so I would ask you to tell me, after your

consultation, which witnesses you're actually going to call

this week and who intends to call them, and if in fact we can

11

work out so that we only call them once.

12

will then take a look at the remaining time and I'll give you

13

limits.

14

morning.

FO

10

And then I will -- I

TH
E

16

MS. IAFRATE:

OF

Ms. Iafrate.

18

call them based on the testimony, so do I err on the side of

19

caution?

ND

THE COURT:

Yes, please do.

IE

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

16:59:21

Okay.

And I'll keep in mind and please keep in

mind that it would appear that we are going to have a

FR

23

that go at the end, I may want to call them or may not want to

22

16:59:08

Your Honor, my concern is our witnesses

17

21

16:58:49

And I want to meet with the parties at 8:30 in the

15

20

16:58:34

24

continuation hearing, so just because we may not be able to fit

25

them all in this week I don't think is going to result in

16:59:29

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 279

unfairness to you.

the two parts of the hearing, I want to accomplish as much as

we can this week and as much as we can in any subsequent

hearings that may be necessary.

But in light of the length of time between

GB
OW
.C
OM

Mr. Liddy, I notice you're back in the -- in the

audience.

be able to conclude whether or not you're going to reenter any

representation in this case?

MR. LIDDY:

Do you have -- do you have any idea when you might

Yes, Your Honor, I am prepared to do that

now.
THE COURT:

You're prepared to do what?

12

MR. LIDDY:

To give you my answer.

13

THE COURT:

Oh, okay.

MR. LIDDY:

I'll be filing an application to withdraw

ahead.

15
tonight.

OF

16

TH
E

11

14

Okay, thanks.

18

Then if -- if any party's going -- has any party

19

thought about whether they're going to oppose Mr. Liddy's

20

application?

ND

IE

FR

23
24
25

Go

17:00:10

Thank you.

THE COURT:

22

All right.

Thank you.

17

21

17:00:02

FO

10

16:59:46

17:00:24

MR. YOUNG:

None from the plaintiffs, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:

that's unique.

That would be awkward, Your Honor.

It would be, but there's a lot about this


17:00:37

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 280

I would not be opposing it, Your Honor.

I just re-urge my concerns that I have as they reflect on me.

THE COURT:

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. IAFRATE:

Well, let me just tell you that Mr. Liddy

set forth, I think, reasons that were unique to Mr. Liddy, and

I -- when I asked you, I think you referred to Mr. Liddy, but

Mr. Liddy's reasons are unique to Mr. Liddy, and I don't think

you share them.

10

No.

However, I also don't think that

Mr. Schwab shares them, and he's no longer sitting at my table,


either.

11

THE COURT:

Well, I didn't grant Mr. Schwab any right

to withdraw, nor is he requesting it, so you can resolve that

13

over the evening.

TH
E

12

14

MR. COMO:

15

MR. WALKER:

16

THE COURT:

I have no objection, Your Honor.


The county has no objection, Your Honor.

All right.

OF

17

Then is there anything else we

Your Honor, let me just add that we don't

MS. WANG:

object to Mr. Liddy's application to withdraw as counsel, to

20

the extent that it doesn't cause any delays, further delays or

21

change in order of witness examinations this week.

IE

ND

19

THE COURT:

17:01:37

Well, I guess one of the things -- and

Ms. Iafrate may have a busy evening.

FR

23

17:01:20

need to take up at this point?

18

22

17:01:07

FO

MS. IAFRATE:

17:00:53

I am going to ask her or

24

somebody to consult with you on the exhibits and on the

25

witnesses and make those kinds of declarations to me so that I

17:01:51

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 281

can be prepared to meet with you at 8:30, but I also think that

maybe we need to know, among those witnesses that people are

actually going to call, we need to figure out which depositions

Ms. Iafrate was actually at, and which ones were covered by

Mr. Liddy and Ms. Iafrate was not at them, so that she can have

time, reasonable time, and not too much time, Ms. Lid --

Ms. Iafrate, but a reasonable time, to review those depositions

and make sure that she's ready to provide representation,

adequate representation here.

Among the witnesses that you intend to call,

11

Ms. Iafrate, are there any whose depositions were taken that

12

you did not cover?


MS. IAFRATE:

14

THE COURT:

Among the witnesses other than Lieutenant

Sousa that you expect the plaintiffs to call, were you not

16

present at any of those depositions.

OF

15

MS. IAFRATE:

THE COURT:

Yes, Your Honor, and I actually made a

I'm -- I'm in no rush, and I'm not going

ND

19

to make anybody in the gallery stay, you can all go, but of

21

course, you're welcome to stay.

17:02:59

There's not going to be any

more testimony today.

FR

23

IE

20

22

17:02:42

list over lunch and now I'm not finding it, so --

18

17:02:28

No, Your Honor.

TH
E

13

17

17:02:09

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

MS. WANG:

Your Honor, while Ms. Iafrate's searching,

24

I would note that when Mr. Casey made his application to

25

withdraw as counsel, we actually did object on the grounds that

17:03:19

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 282

there were several ongoing efforts in the litigation, primarily

relating to document production, and it -- I think it's fair to

say, and I think Ms. Iafrate would agree with me, that in fact

there were difficulties as a result of his withdrawal, and I

would hope that Mr. Liddy's withdrawal doesn't have

repercussions beyond the logistics for this week's hearing, and

to the extent that it would cause those problems, I do think

that plaintiffs would want to be heard on that.

thought it through, frankly.


THE COURT:

I haven't

Well, let me just -- I appreciate that.

Let me make two observations that are sort of general

12

observations about how I intend to approach it, and not

13

specific observations, because you might be able to change my

14

mind in any given fact scenario.

TH
E

11

15

Mr. Liddy, at least in a few sentences, set forth


reasons why he may be in a unique situation that may require

17

his withdrawal.

18

withdrawal is required, and I assume, Mr. Liddy, you're going

19

to put forth the reasons to the extent that you can disclose

20

them in your motion.

ND

He now apparently has concluded that his

17:04:31

If in fact they pertain to his ethical

responsibilities, I'm not going to make him remain in this


case.

FR

23

17:04:14

IE

22

17:03:56

OF

16

21

17:03:39

FO

10

GB
OW
.C
OM

But that having -- and I also do recognize that the

24

county, to the extent they want to assert that the court of

25

appeals' opinion involves something more than merely naming the

17:04:49

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 283

right party, I'm going to let them do whatever they want to do,

even though I have my doubts about that that I've already

expressed.

relate to their fisc and not so much their legal

responsibilities, they can make those arguments, too.

GB
OW
.C
OM

And to the extent they want to assert things that

But I have given the -- I have given MCSO, the county,

the individual contemnors here, adequate and great amount of

time to comply with my rulings, and whether or not -- and I

assume Mr. Liddy has other people in his office that may not
share in his own debility, based on what he said today.

11

I'm assuming that the county, that part of the county


that provides services to the MCSO, and that part of the county

13

that is individually represented is going to put forth major

14

resources to make sure that the remainder of this matter can be

15

expeditiously resolved, and I will expect them to do so and

16

require them to do so, even if Mr. Liddy is allowed to

17

withdraw.

22

MS. IAFRATE:

on, Your Honor.

I don't know what part I'm to comment

17:06:00

The fact that Maricopa County will put forth

money in order to make certain that we get this accomplished?

FR

23

ND

21

hear you, Ms. Iafrate, if you think it is.

IE

20

And I don't think that's unfair, but I'm willing to

18

17:05:44

OF

TH
E

12

19

17:05:26

FO

10

17:05:06

THE COURT:

Well, I'm just going to make it clear that

24

I have made it clear for months what the obligations are in

25

this case.

I was just looking at the various timelines that I

17:06:18

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 284

received that got extended for the completion of the

investigations that are not yet done, and for the discovery

that's not yet happened, and now the withdrawal of Mr. Liddy, I

guess I'm just saying that I'm not going to view that as a

basis or an excuse to further extend that production of those

deadlines.

MS. IAFRATE:

GB
OW
.C
OM

I understand what you're saying, Your

Honor, but I would like to suggest that none of those were my

responsibility --

11

THE COURT:
you in any way.

Oh, no.

Again, I'm not trying to impugn

I'm just stating my position.

12

Anything else?

13

MS. WANG:

14

THE COURT:

15

MS. IAFRATE:

16

THE COURT:

17

MR. WALKER:

18

the county today, Your Honor.

22

24
25

TH
E

Not from plaintiffs, Your Honor.


Ms. Iafrate?
No, Your Honor.

Thank you.

17:07:06

OF

Mr. Walker?
Nothing further -- nothing further for

Nothing further, Your Honor.


All right.

Then I'll see the parties at

8:30, and please e-mail my chambers those lists tonight.


you.

FR

23

THE COURT:

IE

21

MR. COMO:

ND

19
20

17:06:53

FO

10

17:06:37

(Proceedings recessed at 5:07 p.m.)

Thank

17:07:15

CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 285

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 22nd day of April,


2015.

18

22

FR

23

IE

21

ND

19
20

24
25

OF

15

s/Gary Moll