You are on page 1of 4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1647 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

M. Craig Murdy (011016) Craig.Murdy@lewisbrisbois.com
Dane A. Dodd (031084) Dane.Dodd@lewisbrisbois.com
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
Telephone: 602.385.1040
Facsimile: 602.385.1051
Firm email: azdocketing@lewisbrisbois.com
Attorneys for Brian Sands

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his individual and
office capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona; et al.

No. 07-cv-02513-PHX-GMS

RETIRED CHIEF SANDS’
SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO
THE EARLY RETIREMENT
QUESTION POSED BY THE COURT
AT THE MARCH 1, 2016 HEARING
(Hon. G. Murray Snow)

15

Defendants.

16
17

At the March 1, 2016 hearing, the Court invited Retired Chief Brian Sands’ counsel

18

to address evidence that Chief Sands resigned/retired because of disagreements between

19

himself and Sheriff Joseph Arpaio regarding the preliminary injunction. In order to

20

supplement the response provided at the hearing, Chief Sands would note the following.

21

The evidence establishes that Chief Sands and Sheriff Arpaio disagreed about the

22

preliminary injunction. Chief Sands spoke with Sheriff Arpaio after the injunction was

23

issued, and expressed his view to Sheriff Arpaio. Exhibit 1, Tr. 1957:9-13. Sheriff Arpaio

24

“disagreed” with Chief Sands’ view. Id.

25

The evidence establishes that Chief Sands contemplated resignation/retirement with

26

regard to compliance with the preliminary injunction. Exhibit 2, Tr. 1694:3-6. The

27

disagreement between Chief Sands and Sheriff Arpaio deeply troubled Chief Sands to the

28

point that he told Timothy Casey he would “resign” if a meeting between Mr. Casey and

4830-4899-9470.2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1647 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 4
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

1
2

with Sheriff Arpaio did not “go right.” Id.
There is evidence that the disagreement caused or at least contributed to Chief

3

Sands’ decision to retire early. When Chief Sands was asked why he retired, he testified:

4

“I was dissatisfied with my job.” Exhibit 3, Tr. 1972:4-5. Elaborating, he testified that he

5

“felt [he] could no longer effect any change in the office, and that people weren’t listening

6

to [him].” Id. at 1972:19-22. There had been a number of incidents where, without

7

conferring with him, his subordinates were given directives and major management

8

decisions were made. Id. at 1972:19-22. He acknowledged “there [were] times before

9

[his] retirement that [he] felt that the sheriff or chief deputy essentially went around [him]

10

and directed things to [his] subordinates.” Id. at 1973:3-11. Chief Sands did not list the

11

particular instances where this occurred, but there is ample evidence for the Court to infer

12

that at least some of the instances concerned the preliminary injunction.

13

On October 11, 2012, Timothy Casey received a letter from Plaintiffs’ counsel

14

Andre Segura stating, “It has come to our attention that the [MCSO] appears to be

15

detaining and transporting individuals in violation of the Court’s injunction prohibiting

16

sheriff’s deputies from detaining anyone solely on the basis of suspected unlawful

17

presence.” Exhibit 4, Hearing Exhibit 2512. Mr. Casey’s billing records show that later

18

that day, he conferred with Chief Sands and HSU commander Lt. Brian Jakowinicz for

19

approximately 48 minutes. Exhibit 5, Hearing Ex. 2533 at MELC210590-92. Although

20

the reason Mr. Casey met with Chief Sands and Lt. Jakowinicz is redacted, the timing

21

allows one to infer that the meeting pertained to Plaintiffs’ allegations that MCSO was

22

detaining undocumented immigrants in violation of the preliminary injunction. Id.

23

Mr. Casey’s billing entries show that he met with Sheriff Arpaio on October 31,

24

2012. Id. at MELC210592. Chief Sands is not mentioned in that entry. Id. However, Mr.

25

Casey testified that Chief Sands was there for a portion of the meeting. Exhibit 6, Tr.

26

1691:13-19.

27
28

At the October 31, 2012 meeting, Mr. Casey told Sheriff Arpaio that he thought the
practices identified in Mr. Segura’s letter were, in his judgment, a violation of the

4830-4899-9470.2

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1647 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 4
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

1

preliminary injunction. Id. at 1691:23 to 1692:3. According to Mr. Casey, Sheriff Arpaio

2

was initially resistant, telling Mr. Casey “he was the sheriff and he made the decisions.”

3

Id. at 1692:10-15. A “heated discussion” ensued. Id. at 1692:16-21. Ultimately, Sheriff

4

Arpaio conceded to Mr. Casey’s position. Exhibit 7, Tr. 1694:20-23.

5

After the meeting with Sheriff Arpaio, Mr. Casey met with Lt. Jakowinicz. Exhibit

6

5, Hearing Exhibit 2533 at MELC210590-92. At that point, Chief Sands had reason to

7

believe that Mr. Casey had conveyed to Lt. Jakowinicz what was necessary to comply with

8

the preliminary injunction and that the issues regarding compliance had been resolved.

9

However, Sheriff Arpaio met with Lt. Jakowinicz and discussed the issue of turning

10

undocumented immigrants over to federal authorities. Exhibit 8, Tr. 371:9 to 372:14.

11

Sheriff Arpaio asked Lt. Jakowinicz: “What are you going to do if you don’t have state

12

charges for someone, but ICE refuses them.” Id. When Lt. Jakowinicz failed to respond,

13

Sheriff Arpaio stated: “You call Border Patrol. That’s my order. I’m the sheriff. I want

14

you calling Border Patrol.” Id. Unsurprisingly, Lt. Jakowinicz was left with an incorrect

15

view of what was required to comply with the preliminary injunction until the Court’s

16

permanent injunction Order was issued on May 24, 2013. Id. at 369:21 to 371:8.1

17

In Institute of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conversation Society, the Court

18

held that where an employee “could have only complied with the injunction by resigning

19

from her paid employment . . . it would not be equitable to hold [her] in contempt.” 774

20

F3d 935, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). Chief Sands would submit that given the circumstances, it

21

would not be equitable to hold him in contempt.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of March, 2016.

22
23

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

24

By: s/ M. Craig Murdy
M. Craig Murdy
Dane A. Dodd
Attorneys for Retired Chief Brian Sands

25
26
27
28

1

The Sheriff also went outside the chain of command to issue orders directly to Sergeant
Bret Palmer on another occasion. Tr. 171-182.

4830-4899-9470.2

2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1647 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 4
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

5

I hereby certify that on March 7, 2016, I electronically transmitted the foregoing
RETIRED CHIEF SANDS’ SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO THE EARLY
RETIREMENT QUESTION POSED BY THE COURT AT THE MARCH 1, 2016
HEARING to the Clerk’s office using the Court’s CM/ECF System, and thereby served
all counsel of record in this matter.

6

s/ Mariana Lara

3
4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4830-4899-9470.2

3