You are on page 1of 83

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 5

1 Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)
cwang@aclu.org
2 Nida Vidutis*
3 nvidutis@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
4 Immigrants’ Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
5
San Francisco, CA 94111
6 Telephone: (415) 343-0775
Facsimile: (415) 395-0950
7
*Application for admission pro hac vice
8
forthcoming
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs (Additional
10 attorneys for Plaintiffs listed on next page)
11 John T. Masterson, Bar #007447
Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434
12 Justin M. Ackerman, Bar #030726
13 JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
14 Phoenix, Arizona 85004
15 Telephone: (602) 263-1700
Fax: (602) 200-7846
16 jmasterson@jshfirm.com
17 jpopolizio@jshfirm.com
jackerman@jshfirm.com
18
Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
19 in his official capacity as Sheriff of
Maricopa County, AZ
20

Robert J. Moossy, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Steven H. Rosenbaum (NY Bar No.
1901958)
Timothy D. Mygatt (DC Bar No. 1021564)
Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar No.
4141636)
Paul Killebrew (LA Bar No. 32176)
Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar No.
6281308)
Cynthia Coe (DC Bar No. 438792)
Maureen Johnston (WA Bar No. 50037)
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
601 D St. NW, Suite 5200
Washington, D.C. 20004
Attorneys for the United States

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 2:07-cv-02513-GMS
PARTIES’ JOINT NOTICE OF
THEIR PROPOSALS FOR THE
COURT’S SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL PERMANENT
INJUNCTION

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 5

1 Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
2 Daniel J. Pochoda
dpochoda@acluaz.org
3 Brenda Muñoz Furnish
4 bmfurnish@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
5 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
6 Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
7
Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
8 asegura@aclu.org
ACLU Foundation
9 Immigrants’ Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
10 New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2676
11 Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
12
Lai (Pro Hac Vice)
13 Anne
alai@law.uci.edu
14 401 E. Peltason, Suite 3500
Irvine, CA 92697
15 Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-0066
16
Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)
17 syoung@cov.com
18 Covington & Burling LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
19 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
20 Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
21
22 Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
talbarran@cov.com
23 Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
lpedley@cov.com
24
Covington & Burling LLP
25 One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
26
Telephone: (415) 591-7066
27 Facsimile: (415) 955-6566
28

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)
jcastillo@maldef.org

Julia Gomez*
jgomez@maldef.org

Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 629-2512
Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)
jbcofc@aol.com
Law Offices of James B. Chanin
3050 Shattuck Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
Telephone: (510) 848-4752
Facsimile: (510) 848-5819

*Application for admission pro hac vice
forthcoming.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 5

1

Pursuant to the Court’s Order of May 31, 2016 (Doc. 1694), the Parties hereby

2 jointly submit their proposals for the Court’s Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction
3 regarding policies, training, and other matters to remedy issues identified in the Court’s
4 May 13, 2016 Findings of Fact (Doc. 1677). The Parties’ proposals are attached to this
5 notice in three exhibits. The first exhibit is the proposal of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff6 Intervenor; the second is the proposal of Defendant Arpaio; and the third is a redline
7 comparison of the two proposals, showing changes made by Defendant Arpaio to the
8 Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s original proposal.
9
10

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 2016.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Robert J. Moossy, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Steven H. Rosenbaum
Chief, Special Litigation Section
Timothy D. Mygatt
Deputy Chief

27

/s/ Paul Killebrew
Jennifer L. Mondino (NY Bar No. 4141636)
Paul Killebrew (LA Bar No. 32176)
Matthew J. Donnelly (IL Bar No. 6281308)
Cynthia Coe (DC Bar No. 438792)
Maureen Johnston (WA Bar No. 50037)
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Special Litigation Section
601 D St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20004
Tel. (202) 305-3239
paul.killebrew@usdoj.gov

28

Attorneys for the United States

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

/s/ Cecillia D. Wang
Cecillia D. Wang (Pro Hac Vice)
Andre I. Segura (Pro Hac Vice)
Nida Vidutis*
ACLU Foundation
Immigrants’ Rights Project

6
7
8
9

Daniel Pochoda
Brenda Muñoz Furnish
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
Anne Lai (Pro Hac Vice)

10
11
12
13

Stanley Young (Pro Hac Vice)
Tammy Albarran (Pro Hac Vice)
Lauren E. Pedley (Pro Hac Vice)
Covington & Burling, LLP

16

Jorge M. Castillo (Pro Hac Vice)
Julia Gomez*
Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund

17

James B. Chanin (Pro Hac Vice)

14
15

18
19
20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Applications for admission pro hac vice
forthcoming

21
22

JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.

23

/s/ John T. Masterson
John T. Masterson
Joseph J. Popolizio
Justin M. Ackerman
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

24
25
26
27
28

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and
the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on or about June 30, 2016, I filed the foregoing through the Court’s
CM/ECF system which will serve a true and correct copy of the filing on counsel of
record.
/s/ Paul Killebrew

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 27

Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Proposed Second Supplemental Permanent
Injunction

XIV. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
160.

This Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction incorporates all definitions in the
Court’s first Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606 ¶ 1).

161.

The following terms and definitions shall also apply to this Order:

162.

“Misconduct” means a violation of MCSO policies or procedures; violation of federal,
state, or local criminal laws; constitutional violations, whether criminal or civil;
violation of administrative rules; and violation of regulations;
a. “Minor misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline and/or corrective action less severe than a suspension;
b. “Serious misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline of suspension, demotion, or termination;
c. “Misconduct indicating apparent criminal conduct by an employee” means
misconduct that a reasonable and trained Supervisor1 or misconduct investigator
would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent
circumstances of the misconduct;

163.

“Misconduct investigator” means any employee who conducts an administrative
investigation of misconduct, including investigators assigned to the Professional
Standards Bureau or Supervisors in the employee’s Division or Bureau who are
assigned to investigate minor misconduct;

164.

“Principal” means an employee against whom an allegation of misconduct or
wrongdoing has been made;

165.

“Tester” means a person who poses as a civilian making a fictitious complaint for
assessment purposes.

XV.
166.

MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, DISCIPLINE, AND GRIEVANCES
The MCSO will ensure that all allegations of employee misconduct, whether internally

                                                            
1

“Supervisor” is defined in the Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606), ¶ 1(mm): “‘Supervisor’ or
‘supervisor’ means a sworn MCSO employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities)
with oversight responsibility for MCSO personnel.”

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 27

discovered or based on a civilian complaint, are fully, fairly, and efficiently
investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by the appropriate standard of
proof and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held
accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due
process. To achieve these outcomes, the MCSO will implement the requirements set
out below.
167.

All policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and other material required by
this Order are subject to the same process of review and comment by the parties and
approval by the Monitor described in Section IV and paragraph 46 of the first
Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606).
A.

168.

Policies Regarding Misconduct Investigations, Discipline, and
Grievances

Within two months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO shall conduct a
comprehensive review of all policies, procedures, manuals, and other written directives
related to misconduct investigations, employee discipline, and grievances, and shall
adopt new policies or revise existing policies that incorporate all of the requirements of
this Order.

169.

Such policies shall apply to all misconduct investigations of MCSO personnel.

170.

The policies shall include the following provisions:
a. Conflicts of interest in misconduct investigations shall be prohibited This
provision requires the following.
i.

No employee who was involved in an incident shall conduct or review a
misconduct investigation arising out of the incident.

ii.

No employee who has an external business relationship or close personal
relationship with a principal or witness in a misconduct investigation shall
conduct or review the misconduct investigation.

b. If a misconduct investigator or a commander who is responsible for making
disciplinary findings or determining discipline has knowledge of a conflict of
interest affecting his or her involvement, he or she should immediately inform the
Director of the Professional Standards Bureau or, if that the holder of that office
also suffers from a conflict, the highest-ranking, non-conflicted chief-level officer

2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 27

at MCSO.
c. Investigations into an employee’s alleged untruthfulness can be initiated by the
Professional Standards Bureau and not only by the Chief Deputy.
d. Any MCSO employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of misconduct
by another employee shall report the incident to a Supervisor or directly to the
Professional Standards Bureau.
e. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a Supervisor, the Supervisor shall
immediately document and report the information to the Professional Standards
Bureau.
f. Failure to report an act of misconduct shall be considered misconduct and shall
result in disciplinary and/or corrective action, up to and including termination.
The presumptive discipline for a failure to report such allegations will be
commensurate with the presumptive discipline for the underlying misconduct.
g. No MCSO employee ranked below a lieutenant will conduct an investigation at
the District level.
h. All forms of retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, coercion, or adverse action
against any person, civilian, or employee because that person reports misconduct,
attempts to make or makes a misconduct complaint in good faith, or cooperates
with an investigation of misconduct are strictly prohibited.
i. Retaliating against any person who reports or investigates alleged misconduct
shall be considered a serious offense and shall result in discipline, up to and
including termination.
j. The MCSO shall investigate all complaints and allegations of misconduct,
including third-party and anonymous complaints and allegations. Employees as
well as civilians shall be permitted to make misconduct allegations anonymously.
k. The MCSO will not terminate an administrative investigation only because the
complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint or is unavailable, unwilling, or
unable to cooperate with an investigation, or because the principal resigns or
retires to avoid discipline. The MCSO will continue the investigation and reach a
finding, where possible, based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and
techniques available.

3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 27

l. Employees are required to provide all relevant evidence and information in their
custody and control to misconduct investigators. Intentionally withholding
evidence or information from a misconduct investigator shall result in discipline.
m. Employees who are named as a principal in an ongoing investigation of serious
misconduct shall be ineligible for promotion or a salary increase during the
pendency of the investigation.
n. Employees’ and applicants’ disciplinary history shall be considered in all hiring,
promotion, and transfer decisions, and this consideration shall be documented.
Employees and applicants whose disciplinary history demonstrates a pattern of
misconduct, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or Category 7 offense
from MCSO’s disciplinary matrices, shall be presumptively ineligible for hire or
promotion. MCSO shall provide a written justification for hiring or promoting an
employee or applicant who has a history demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or
a previous sustained Category 6 or Category 7 offense. This written justification
shall be included in the employee’s employment file.
o. Commanders shall review the disciplinary history of all employees who are
transferred to their command upon transfer.
p. The quality of investigators’ misconduct investigations and Supervisors’ reviews
of investigations shall be taken into account in their performance evaluations.
q. There shall be no procedure referred to as a “name-clearing hearing.” All predisciplinary hearings shall be referred to as “pre-determination hearings,”
regardless of the employment status of the principal.
B.
171.

Misconduct-Related Training

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO will provide all Supervisors
and all personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau with 40 hours of
comprehensive training on conducting employee misconduct investigations. This
training will include instruction in:

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview
techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and
case management;

4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 27

b. the particular challenges of administrative law enforcement misconduct
investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not
clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the
investigation;
c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against
employees;
d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements;
e. the proper application of the appropriate standard of proof;
f. report-writing skills;
g. requirements related to the confidentiality of witnesses and/or
complainants;
h. considerations in handling anonymous complaints;
i. relevant MCSO rules and policies, including protocols related to
administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct; and
j. relevant state and federal law, including the requirements of this Court’s
orders.
172.

All Supervisors and all personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau also
will receive 8 hours of in-service training annually related to conducting misconduct
investigations.

173.

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO will provide training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all
employees on MCSO’s revised or new policies related to misconduct investigations,
discipline, and grievances. This training shall include instruction on identifying and
reporting misconduct, the consequences for failing to report misconduct, and the
consequences for retaliating against a person for reporting misconduct or participating
in a misconduct investigation.

174.

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO will provide training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all
employees, including dispatchers, to properly handle civilian complaint intake,
including how to provide complaint materials and information and the consequences for

5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 27

failing to take complaints.
175.

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO will provide training that is
adequate in quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all
Supervisors on their obligations when called to a scene by a subordinate to accept a
civilian complaint about that subordinate’s conduct.
C.

176.

Administrative Misconduct Investigations

The MCSO will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely administrative
investigations of all allegations of employee misconduct. All findings will be based on
the appropriate standard of proof. These standards will be clearly delineated in policies,
training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper
application by misconduct investigators.

177.

Upon receipt of any allegation of misconduct, whether internally discovered or based
upon a civilian complaint, employees shall immediately notify the Professional
Standards Bureau.

178.

Effective immediately, the Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain a centralized
electronic numbering and tracking system for all allegations of misconduct, whether
internally discovered or based upon a civilian complaint. Upon being notified of any
allegation of misconduct, the Professional Standards Bureau will promptly assign a
unique identifier to the incident. If the allegation was made through a civilian
complaint, the unique identifier will be provided to the complainant at the time the
complaint is made. The Professional Standards Bureau’s centralized numbering and
tracking system will maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the number, nature,
and status of all misconduct allegations, from initial intake to final disposition,
including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the interim
status, if requested, and final disposition of the complaint. The system will be used to
determine the status of misconduct investigations, as well as for periodic assessment of
compliance with relevant policies and procedures and this Order, including
requirements of timeliness of investigations. The system also will be used to monitor
and maintain appropriate caseloads for misconduct investigators.

179.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain a complete file of all documents
within MCSO’s custody and control relating to any investigation and related

6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 27

disciplinary proceedings, including pre-determination hearings, grievance proceedings,
and appeals to the Maricopa County Law Enforcement Merit Commission or a state
court.
180.

Upon being notified of any allegation of misconduct, the Professional Standards Bureau
will make an initial determination of the category of the alleged offense, to be used for
the purposes of assigning the administrative investigation to an investigator. After
initially categorizing the allegation, the Professional Standards Bureau will promptly
assign a misconduct investigator.

181.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall administratively investigate:
a. misconduct allegations of a serious nature, including any allegation that may
result in suspension, demotion, or termination;
b. misconduct indicating apparent criminal conduct by an employee; and
c. all civilian complaints.

182.

Internal allegations of employee misconduct that are of a minor nature may be
administratively investigated by a trained and qualified Supervisor in the employee’s
District.

183.

If at any point during a misconduct investigation an investigating Supervisor outside of
the Professional Standards Bureau believes that the principal may have committed
misconduct of a serious or criminal nature, he or she shall immediately notify the
Professional Standards Bureau, which shall take over the investigation.

184.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall review of all investigations assigned outside
the Bureau to determine, among other things, whether the investigation remain properly
categorized and assigned and whether the investigation is being properly conducted.

185.

When an allegation of misconduct contains multiple categories of offenses, the most
serious offense shall be used for the purposes of assigning a misconduct investigator.

186.

The Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall ensure that investigation
assignments comply with MCSO policy and all requirements of this Order, including
those related to training, investigators’ disciplinary backgrounds, and conflicts of
interest.

187.

Within six months of the entry of this order, the Professional Standards Bureau shall
include sufficient trained personnel to fulfill the requirements of this Order.

7

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 27

188.

Where appropriate to ensure the fact and appearance of impartiality, the Director of the
Professional Standards Bureau may refer administrative misconduct investigations to
another law enforcement agency or may retain a qualified outside investigator to
conduct the investigation.

189.

The Professional Standards Bureau will be headed by a qualified Director who is not a
current or former employee of the MCSO. The Director of the Professional Standards
Bureau will have ultimate authority within the MCSO for reaching the findings of
investigations and determining any discipline to be imposed.

190.

The Court will select the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau.

191.

Within two weeks of the entry of this Order, the Parties may each submit to the Court
the names and resumes of three candidates to be considered for the position of Director
of the Professional Standards Bureau.

192.

The Court will consider these candidates but will not be limited to selecting the
Director from among them.

193.

To promote independence and the confidentiality of investigations, the Professional
Standards Bureau shall be physically located in a facility that is separate from other
MCSO facilities, such as a professional office building or commercial retail space. This
facility shall be easily accessible to the public, present a non-intimidating atmosphere,
and have sufficient space and personnel for receiving members of the public and for
permitting them to file complaints.

194.

The MCSO will ensure that the qualifications for service as a misconduct investigator
shall be clearly defined and that anyone tasked with investigating employee misconduct
possesses excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write
clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an
employee committed misconduct. Employees with a history of multiple sustained
misconduct allegations, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or Category 7
offense from MCSO’s disciplinary matrices will be presumptively ineligible to conduct
misconduct investigations. Employees with a history of conducting deficient
investigations will also be presumptively ineligible for these duties.

195.

In each misconduct investigation, investigators shall:
a. conduct investigations in a rigorous and impartial manner designed to determine

8

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 27

the facts;
b. approach investigations without prejudging the facts and without permitting any
preconceived impression of the principal or any witness to cloud the
investigation;
c. identify, collect, and consider all relevant circumstantial, direct, and physical
evidence, including any audio or video recordings;
d. make reasonable attempts to locate and interview all witnesses, including civilian
witnesses;
e. make reasonable attempt to interview any civilian complainant in person;
f. audio and video record all interviews;
g. when conducting interviews, avoid asking leading questions and never ask
employees or witnesses any questions that may suggest justifications for the
alleged misconduct;
h. make credibility determinations, as appropriate; and
i. make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between employee,
complainant, and witness statements.
196.

There will be no automatic preference for an employee’s statement over a nonemployee’s statement. Misconduct investigators will not disregard a witness’s
statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or
the employee or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history. In
conducting the investigation, misconduct investigators may take into account the record
of any witness, complainant, or officer who has been determined to have been
deceptive or untruthful in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other
investigation.

197.

Misconduct investigators will evaluate any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered
during the course of the investigation, regardless of whether the potential misconduct
was part of the original allegation.

198.

If the person involved in the encounter with the MCSO pleads guilty or is found guilty
of an offense, misconduct investigators will not consider that information alone to be
determinative of whether an MCSO employee engaged in misconduct, nor will it by
itself justify discontinuing the investigation. MCSO training materials and policies on

9

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 27

internal investigations will acknowledge explicitly that the fact of a criminal conviction
has no bearing on whether an MCSO employee engaged in misconduct against the
person, and that the mission of a misconduct investigator is to determine whether any
misconduct occurred.
199.

Misconduct investigators will complete their administrative investigations within 85
calendar days of the initiation of the investigation (60 calendar days if within a
Division). Any request for an extension of time must be approved in writing by the
Director of the Professional Standards Bureau.

200.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain a database to track all ongoing
misconduct cases and shall generate alerts to the responsible investigator and his/her
Supervisor and the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau when deadlines are
not met.

201.

At the conclusion of each investigation, misconduct investigators will prepare an
investigation report. The report will include:

a. a narrative description of the incident,;
b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names,
phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations
in which there are no known witnesses, the report will specifically state
this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but
circumstances prevented the misconduct investigator from determining
the identification, phone number, or address of those witnesses, the
report will state the reasons why. The report also will include all
available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a
statement;
c. documentation of whether employees were interviewed, and a transcript
or recording of those interviews;
d. the names of all other MCSO employees who witnessed the incident;
e. the misconduct investigator’s evaluation of the incident, based on his or
her review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of
whether the employee’s actions appear to be within MCSO policy,
10

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 27

procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of
MCSO employees;
f. in cases where credibility determinations must be made, explicit
credibility findings, including a precise description of the evidence that
supports or detracts from the person’s credibility;
g. in cases where material inconsistencies must be resolved between
complainant, employee, and witness statements, explicit resolution of
the inconsistencies, including a precise description of the evidence
relied upon to resolve the inconsistencies;
h. an assessment of the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment
concerns, including any recommendations for how those concerns will
be addressed;
i. if a weapon was used, documentation that the employee’s certification
and training for the weapon were current; and
j. documentation of recommendations for initiation of the disciplinary
process.
202.

In assessing the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns,
investigation reports will include an assessment of whether:
a. the law enforcement action was in compliance with training and legal standards;
b. the use of different tactics should or could have been employed;
c. the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other nondisciplinary corrective actions; and
d. the incident suggests that the MCSO should revise its policies, strategies,
tactics, or training.

203.

For each allegation of misconduct, misconduct investigators shall explicitly identify
and recommend one of the following dispositions for each allegation of misconduct in
an administrative investigation:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the alleged misconduct did not occur or did not involve the
principal employee;

11

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 27

b. “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur;
c. “Not Sustained,” where the investigation is unable to determine, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged misconduct occurred;
d. “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate MCSO policies,
procedures, or training; or
e. “Sustained violation not based on original complaint,” where the investigation
determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that misconduct did occur that
was not alleged in the original complaint but that was discovered during the
misconduct investigation.
204.

For investigations carried out by Supervisors outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau, the investigator shall forward the completed investigation report through his or
her chain of command to his or her Division Commander. For investigations carried out
by the Professional Standards Bureau, the investigator shall forward the completed
investigation report to the Director. The Commander or Director shall review the report
to ensure that it is complete and that the findings are supported using the appropriate
standard of proof. The Commander or Director shall order additional investigation
when it appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving
inconsistencies or improving the reliability or credibility of the findings.

205.

Where the or Director determines that the findings of the investigation report are not
supported by the appropriate standard of proof, the Commander or Director shall
document the reasons for this determination and shall include this documentation as an
addendum to the original investigation. The investigator’s Supervisor shall take
appropriate action to address the inadequately supported determination and any
investigative deficiencies that led to it. Commanders and the Director of the
Professional Standards Bureau shall be responsible for the accuracy and completeness
of investigation reports prepared by misconduct investigators under their command.

206.

Where a misconduct investigator conducts a deficient misconduct investigation, the
investigator shall receive the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. A
misconduct investigator’s failure to improve the quality of his or her investigations

12

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 27

after corrective and/or disciplinary action is taken shall be grounds for demotion and/or
removal from a supervisory position or the Professional Standards Bureau.
207.

Investigations of minor misconduct conducted outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau must be conducted by a Supervisor and not by line-level deputies. After such
investigations, the investigating Supervisor’s Commander shall forward the
investigation file to the Professional Standards Bureau after he or she finds that the
misconduct investigation is complete and the findings are supported by the evidence.
The Professional Standards Bureau shall review the misconduct investigation to ensure
that it is complete and that the findings are supported by the evidence. The Professional
Standards Bureau shall order additional investigation when it appears that there is
additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improving
the reliability or credibility of the findings. Where the findings of the investigation
report are not supported by the appropriate standard of proof, the Professional
Standards Bureau shall document the reasons for this determination and shall include
this documentation as an addendum to the original investigation.

208.

At the discretion of the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau, a misconduct
investigation may be assigned or re-assigned to another Supervisor with the approval of
the Bureau Commander for investigation, whether within or outside of the District or
Bureau in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the original Supervisor for
further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall be explained in
writing.

209.

Where, after an investigation of minor misconduct conducted outside of the
Professional Standards Bureau, an employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the
investigating Supervisor’s Commander shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline
and/or corrective action. Where the incident indicates policy, training, tactical, or
equipment concerns, the Commander shall also ensure that necessary training is
delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved.

210.

Where, after an investigation conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau, an
employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the Director of the Professional
Standards Bureau shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline and/or corrective action.
Where the incident indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns, the

13

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 14 of 27

Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall also ensure that necessary training
is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved.
211.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall conduct targeted and random reviews of
discipline imposed by Commanders for minor misconduct to ensure compliance with
MCSO policy and legal standards.

212.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all administrative investigation
reports and files after they are completed for record-keeping.

F.
213.

Discipline

The MCSO will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports
with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the
allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently
applied and documented.

214.

In order to ensure consistency in the imposition of discipline, the MCSO will review its
current disciplinary matrices and will amend them as necessary to ensure that they:

a. establish a presumptive range of discipline for each type of violation;
b. increase the presumptive discipline based on an employee’s prior
violations ;
c. set out defined mitigating and aggravating factors;
d. prohibit consideration of the employee’s race, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, national origin, age, or ethnicity;
e. prohibit nepotism in the administration of discipline;
f. prohibit consideration of the high (or low) profile nature of the incident,
including media coverage or other public attention;
g. clearly define forms of discipline and define classes of discipline as
used in policies and operations manuals;
h. provide that corrective action such as coaching or training is not
considered to be discipline and should not be used as a substitute for
discipline where the matrix calls for discipline;

14

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 15 of 27

i. provide that the MCSO will not take only non-disciplinary corrective
action in cases in which the disciplinary matrices call for the imposition
of discipline;
j. provide that the MCSO will consider whether non-disciplinary
corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been
imposed; and
k. require that any departures from the discipline recommended under the
disciplinary matrices be justified in writing.
215.

Each act or omission that results in a sustained misconduct allegation shall be treated as
a separate offense for the purposes of imposing discipline.

216.

The Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall make preliminary
determinations of the discipline to be imposed in all cases and shall document all
disciplinary decisions in writing, including the presumptive range of discipline for the
sustained misconduct allegation, the employee’s disciplinary history, all mitigating and
aggravating factors considered, and all recommended non-disciplinary corrective
action.
D.

217.

Pre-Determination Hearings

Where the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau makes a preliminary
determination that major discipline (defined as suspension, demotion, or termination)
should be imposed, a designated member of MCSO’s command staff will conduct a
pre-determination hearing and will provide the employee with an opportunity to be
heard.

218.

Pre-determination hearings will be audio and video recorded in their entirety, and the
recording shall be maintained with the administrative investigation file.

219.

If an employee provides new or additional evidence at a pre-determination hearing, the
hearing will be suspended and the matter will be returned to the misconduct
investigator for consideration or further investigation, as necessary. If after any further
investigation or consideration of the new or additional evidence, there is no change in
discipline, the matter will go back to the pre-determination hearing. The Professional
Standards Bureau shall initiate a separate misconduct investigation if it appears that the

15

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 16 of 27

employee intentionally withheld the new or additional evidence during the initial
misconduct investigation.
220.

If the designated member of MCSO’s command staff conducting the pre-determination
hearing does not uphold the charges recommended by the Professional Standards
Bureau in whole or in part, or does not impose the Professional Standards Bureau
Director’s recommended discipline and/or non-disciplinary corrective action, the
designated member of the command staff will set forth in writing his or her justification
for doing so. This justification will be appended to the investigation file.

221.

MCSO policy shall provide that a commander conducting a pre-determination hearing
should apply the disciplinary matrix and set forth clear guidelines for the grounds on
which a deviation is permitted. A commander may not consider as grounds for
mitigation or reducing the level of discipline prescribed by the matrix:
a. his or her personal opinion about the employee’s reputation;
b. the employee’s past disciplinary history (or lack thereof), except as provided in
the disciplinary matrix;
c. whether other employees charged with similar conduct received lighter discipline
or whether others were jointly responsible for the misconduct.

222.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall initiate a misconduct investigation if the
designated member of MCSO’s command staff conducting the pre-determination
hearing changes disciplinary findings or recommended discipline in a way that appears
to violate MCSO policy.
E.

223.

Criminal Misconduct Investigations

Whenever an investigator or Commander finds evidence of misconduct indicating
apparent criminal conduct by an employee, the investigator or Commander shall
immediately notify the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau. If the
administrative misconduct investigation is being conducted by a Supervisor outside of
the Professional Standards Bureau, the Professional Standards Bureau shall
immediately take over the administrative investigation.

224.

All allegations of criminal misconduct by MCSO employees shall be referred to
another law enforcement agency or a qualified outside investigator to conduct the
criminal investigation.

16

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 17 of 27

225.

If a misconduct allegation will be investigated criminally, the Professional Standards
Bureau will not compel an interview of the principal pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey,
385 U.S. 493 (1967) until it has first consulted with the criminal investigator and the
relevant prosecuting authority. No other part of the administrative investigation shall be
held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Director of the Professional
Standards Bureau in consultation with the entity conducting the criminal investigation.
The Professional Standards Bureau shall document in writing all decisions regarding
compelling an interview, all decisions to hold any aspect of an administrative
investigation in abeyance, and all consultations with the criminal investigator and
prosecuting authority.

226.

The Professional Standards Bureau will ensure that criminal investigators do not have
access to any statements by the principal that were compelled pursuant to Garrity v.
New Jersey.

227.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall complete the administrative investigation
regardless of the outcome of any criminal investigation, including cases in which the
prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after the
initiation of criminal charges. The relevant provisions of MCSO policies and the
operations manual for the Professional Standards Bureau shall remind members of the
Bureau that administrative and criminal cases are held to different standards of proof,
that the elements of a policy violation differ from those of a criminal offense, and that
the purposes of the administrative investigation process differ from those of the
criminal investigation process.

228.

The entity conducting the criminal investigation decides to close the investigation
without referring it to a prosecuting agency, this decision must be documented in
writing and provided to the Professional Standards Bureau. The Professional Standards
Bureau shall separately consider whether to refer the matter to a prosecuting agency
and shall document its decision in writing.

229.

If the entity conducting the criminal investigation decides to refer the matter to a
prosecuting agency, the Professional Standards Bureau shall review the information
provided to the prosecuting agency to ensure that it is of sufficient quality and
completeness. The Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall request the

17

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 18 of 27

entity conducting the criminal investigation to conduct additional investigation when it
appears that there is additional relevant evidence that may improve the reliability or
credibility of the investigation. Such requests shall be documented in writing and
included in the investigatory file.
230.

If the prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after the
initiation of criminal charges, the Professional Standards Bureau shall request an
explanation for this decision, which shall be documented in writing and appended to the
criminal investigation report.

231.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all criminal investigation reports and
files after they are completed for record-keeping
F.

232.

Civilian Complaint Intake, Communication, and Tracking

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the Monitor, in consultation with the
Community Advisory Board, will develop and implement a program to promote
awareness throughout the Maricopa County community about the process for filing
complaints about the conduct of MCSO employees.

233.

The MCSO will accept all civilian complaints, whether submitted verbally or in
writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on the
complainant’s behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the
complainant. MCSO will document all complaints in writing.

234.

The MCSO will post and maintain at the reception desk at MCSO headquarters and in
locations at all District stations that are clearly visible to members of the public
permanent placards clearly and simply describing the civilian complaint process. The
placards shall include relevant contact information, including telephone numbers, email
addresses, and Internet sites. The placards shall be in both English and Spanish.

235.

The MCSO will require all deputies to carry complaint forms in their MCSO vehicles.
Deputies will provide complaint forms and information about how to file a complaint to
individuals upon request. Deputies will provide their name and badge number upon
request. If an individual indicates to a deputy that he or she would like to make a
complaint about that deputy, the deputy will immediately inform his or her Supervisor
and ask the Supervisor how long it would take him or her to respond to the scene. The
deputy will then inform the individual that his or her Supervisor can respond to the

18

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 19 of 27

scene to assist the individual in filing a complaint, if the individual desires and is
willing to wait for the Supervisor to arrive. If the individual responds in the affirmative,
the Supervisor will respond to the scene, assist the individual to the extent assistance is
desired, and provide the individual a copy of the completed complaint form. Otherwise
the deputy will assist the individual to the extent assistance is desired and provide the
individual a copy of the completed complaint form.
236.

The MCSO will ensure that the Professional Standards Bureau facility is easily
accessible to members of the public. There shall be a space available for receiving
walk-in visitors and personnel who can assist the public with filing complaints and/or
answer questions about the complaint investigations process.

237.

The MCSO will also make complaint forms widely available at locations around the
County including: the websites of MCSO and Maricopa County government; the lobby
of MCSO’s headquarters; each patrol District; and the Maricopa County government
offices. The MCSO will ask locations such as public library branches and the offices
and gathering places of community groups to make these materials available.

238.

The MCSO will establish a free, 24-hour hotline for members of the public to make
complaints.

239.

The MCSO’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be
construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, such as warnings about the
potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.

240.

Within two months of the entry of this Order, complaint forms will be made available,
at a minimum, in English and Spanish. The MCSO will make reasonable efforts to
ensure that complainants who speak other languages (including sign language) and
have limited English proficiency can file complaints in their preferred language. The
fact that a complainant does not speak, read, or write English, or is deaf or hard of
hearing will not be grounds to decline to accept or investigate a complaint.

241.

In the course of investigating a civilian complaint, the Professional Standards Bureau
will send periodic written updates to the complainant including:

a. within seven days of receipt of a complaint, the Professional Standards
Bureau will send non-anonymous complainants a written notice of
receipt, including the tracking number assigned to the complaint. The
19

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 20 of 27

notice will inform the complainant how he or she may contact the
Professional Standards Bureau to inquire about the status of a
complaint;
b. when the Professional Standards Bureau concludes its investigation, the
Bureau will notify the complainant that the investigation has been
concluded and inform the complainant of the Bureau’s findings; and
c. in cases where discipline is imposed, the Professional Standards Bureau
will notify the complainant of the discipline.
242.

Notwithstanding the above notices, a complainant and/or his/her representative may
contact the Professional Standards Bureau at any time to determine the status of his or
her complaint, and MCSO will provide the status.

243.

The Professional Standards Bureau will track, as a separate category of complaints,
allegations of biased policing, including allegations that a deputy conducted an
investigatory stop or arrest based on an individual’s demographic category or used a
slur based on an individual’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, nationality,
immigration status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Professional
Standards Bureau will require that complaints of biased policing are captured and
tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.

244.

The Professional Standards Bureau will track, as a separate category of complaints,
allegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, seizures, or arrests.

245.

The Professional Standards Bureau will conduct regular assessments of the types of
complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and
trends.
G.

246.

Transparency Measures

The Professional Standards Bureau will produce a quarterly public report on
misconduct investigations, including, at a minimum, the following:
a. Summary information that does not name the specific employees involved about
any sustained allegations that an employee violated conflict-of-interest rules in
conducting or reviewing misconduct investigations;
b. aggregate data on complaints received from the public, broken down by district;

20

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 21 of 27

rank of principal(s); nature of contact (traffic stop, pedestrian stop, call for
service, etc.); nature of allegation (rudeness, bias-based policing, etc.);
complainants’ demographic information (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.);
complaints received from anonymous or third parties; and principals’
demographic information;
c. analysis of whether any increase or decrease in the number of civilian
complaints received from quarter to quarter is attributable to issues in the
complaint intake process or other factors;
d. aggregate data on internally-generated misconduct allegations, broken down by
similar categories as those for civilian complaints;
e. aggregate data on the processing of misconduct cases, including the number of
cases assigned to Supervisors outside the Professional Standards Bureau versus
investigators in the Professional Standards Bureau; the average and median time
from the initiation of an investigation to its submission by the investigator to his
or her chain of command; the average and median time from the submission of
the investigation by the investigator to a final decision regarding discipline, or
other final disposition if no discipline is imposed; the number of investigations
returned to the original investigator due to conclusions not being supported by
the evidence; and the number of investigations returned to the original
investigator to conduct additional investigation;
f. aggregate data on the outcomes of misconduct investigations, including the
number of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded misconduct
complaints; the number of misconduct allegations supported by the appropriate
standard of proof; the number of sustained allegations resulting in a nondisciplinary outcome, coaching, written reprimand, suspension, demotion, and
termination; the number of cases in which findings were changed after a predetermination hearing, broken down by initial finding and final finding; the
number of cases in which discipline was changed after a pre-determination
hearing, broken down by initial discipline and final discipline; the number of
cases in which findings were overruled, sustained, or changed by the County
Merit Commission, broken down by the finding reached by the MCSO and the

21

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 22 of 27

finding reached by the Commission; and the number of cases in which
discipline was altered by the County Merit Commission, broken down by the
discipline imposed by the MCSO and the disciplinary ruling of the County
Merit Commission; and similar information on appeals beyond the County
Merit Commission; and
g. aggregate data on employees with persistent or serious misconduct problems,
including the number of employees who have been the subject of more than two
misconduct investigations in the previous 12 months, broken down by major
and minor misconduct; the number of investigations; the number of employees
who have had more than one sustained allegation of minor misconduct in the
previous 12 months, broken down by the number of sustained allegations; the
number of employees who have had more than one sustained allegation of
major misconduct in the previous 12 months, broken down by the number of
sustained allegations; and the number of criminal prosecutions of employees,
broken down by criminal charge.
247.

The MCSO shall make detailed summaries of completed internal affairs investigations
readily available to the public to the full extent permitted under state law, in electronic
form on a designated section of its website that is linked to directly from MCSO’s
home page with prominent language that clearly indicates to the public that the link
provides information about investigations of misconduct by MCSO employees.

248.

The MCSO Bureau of Internal Oversight shall produce a quarterly public audit report
regarding misconduct investigations. This report shall analyze a stratified random
sample of misconduct investigations that were completed during the previous quarter to
identify any procedural irregularities, including any instances in which:
a. complaint notification procedures were not followed;
b. a misconduct complaint was not assigned a unique identifier;
c. investigation assignment protocols were not followed, such as serious or
criminal misconduct being investigated outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau;
d. deadlines were not met;
e. an investigation was conducted by an employee who had not received required

22

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 23 of 27

misconduct investigation training;
f. an investigation was conducted by an employee with a history of multiple
sustained misconduct allegations, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or
Category 7 offense from MCSO’s disciplinary matrices;
g. an investigation was conducted by an employee who was named as a principal
or witness in any investigation of the underlying incident;
h. any interviews were not recorded;
i. the investigation report was not reviewed by the appropriate personnel;
j. employees were promoted or received a salary increase while named as a
principal in an ongoing misconduct investigation;
k. a final finding was not reached on a misconduct allegation;
l. an employee’s disciplinary history was not documented in a disciplinary
recommendation; or
m. no written explanation was provided for the imposition of discipline
inconsistent with the disciplinary matrix.
H.
249.

Testing Program for Civilian Complaint Intake

The MCSO shall initiate a testing program designed to assess civilian complaint
intake. Specifically, the testing program shall assess whether employees are providing
civilians appropriate and accurate information about the complaint process and whether
employees are notifying the Professional Standards Bureau upon the receipt of a
civilian complaint.

250.

The testing program is not intended to assess investigations of civilian complaints, and
the MCSO shall design the testing program in such a way that it does not waste
resources investigating fictitious complaints made by testers.

251.

The testing program shall assess complaint intake for complaints made in person at
MCSO facilities, complaints made telephonically, and complaints made electronically
by email or through MCSO’s website. Testers shall not interfere with deputies taking
law enforcement action. Testers shall not attempt to assess complaint intake in the
course of traffic stops or other law enforcement action being taken outside of MCSO
facilities.

252.

The testing program shall include sufficient random and targeted testing to assess the

23

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 24 of 27

complaint intake process, utilizing surreptitious video and/or audio recording, as
permitted by state law, of testers’ interactions with MCSO personnel to assess the
appropriateness of responses and information provided.
253.

The testing program shall also assess whether employees promptly notify the
Professional Standards Bureau of civilian complaints and provide accurate and
complete information to the Bureau.

254.

MCSO shall not permit current or former employees to serve as testers.

255.

The MCSO shall produce an annual report on the testing program. This report shall
include, at a minimum:
a. a description of the testing program, including the testing methodology and the
number of tests conducted broken down by type (i.e., in-person, telephonic, and
electronic);
b. the number and proportion of tests in which employees responded inappropriately
to a tester;
c. the number and proportion of tests in which employees provided inaccurate
information about the complaint process to a tester;
d. the number and proportion of tests in which employees failed to promptly notify
the Professional Standards Bureau of the civilian complaint;
e. the number and proportion of tests in which employees failed to convey accurate
information about the complaint to the Professional Standards Bureau;
f. an evaluation of the civilian complaint intake based upon the results of the testing
program; and
g. a description of any steps to be taken to improve civilian complaint intake as a
result of the testing program.

XVI. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
256.

The Community Advisory Board may conduct or retain a consultant to conduct a study
to identify barriers to the filing of civilian complaints against MCSO personnel.

257.

In addition to the administrative support provided for in [cite the amended order], the
Community Advisory Board (“CAB”) shall be provided with annual funding to support
its activities, including but not limited to funds for a study of the barriers to the filing of
civilian complaints, outreach advertising and website maintenance, stipends for intern

24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 25 of 27

support, professional interpretation and translation, and out-of-pocket costs of the CAB
members for transportation related to their official responsibilities. The CAB shall
submit a proposed annual budget to the Monitor, not to exceed $15,000, and upon
approval of the annual budget the County shall deposit that amount into an account
established by the CAB for that purpose.

XVII. SUPERVISION AND STAFFING
258.

The following Section of this Order represent additions and amendments to Section X
of the first Supplemental Permanent Injunction, Supervision and Evaluations of Officer
Performance, and the provisions of this Section override any conflicting provisions in
Section X of the first Supplemental Permanent Injunction.

259.

All patrol deputies shall be assigned to a primary, clearly identified first-line
supervisor.

260.

First-line patrol supervisors shall be responsible for closely and consistently
supervising all deputies under their primary command.

261.

First-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned as primary supervisor to no more than
eight patrol deputies. If the Monitor determines assignment complexity, the geographic
size of a district, the volume of calls for service, or other circumstances warrant an
increase in the level of supervision for any unit, squad, or shift, the Monitor shall order
such increases as necessary.

262.

Supervisors shall be responsible for close and effective supervision of deputies under
their command. Supervisors shall ensure that all deputies under their direct command
comply with MCSO policy, federal, state and local law, and this Court’s orders.

263.

Any transfer of sworn personnel or supervisors in or out of the Professional Standards
Bureau, the Bureau of Internal Oversight, and the Court Implementation Division shall
require advanced approval from the Court. Prior to any transfer into any of these
components, the MCSO shall provide the Court, Monitor, and parties with advance
notice of the transfer and shall produce copies of the individual’s resumé and
disciplinary history. The Court may order the removal of the heads of these components
if doing so is, in the Court’s view, necessary to achieve compliance in a timely manner.

XVIII.
264.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION

MCSO shall ensure that when it receives a document preservation notice from a

25

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 26 of 27

litigant, it shall promptly communicate that document preservation notice to all
personnel who might possibly have responsive documents.
265.

MCSO shall ensure that when it receives a request for documents in the course of
litigation, it shall:
a. promptly communicate the document request to all personnel who might
possibly be in possession of responsive documents
b. ensure that all existing electronic files, including email files and data stored on
networked drives are sequestered and preserved through a centralized process
c. ensure that a thorough and adequate search for documents is conducted, and that
each employee who might possibly be in possession of responsive documents
conducts a thorough and adequate search of all relevant physical and electronic
files

266.

Within three months of the effective date of this order, the MCSO Compliance Division
shall promulgate detailed protocols for the preservation and production of documents
requested in litigation. Such protocols shall be subject to the approval of the Monitor
after a period of comment by the Parties.

267.

MCSO policy shall provide that all employees must comply with document
preservation and production requirements and that violations of this policy shall be
subject to discipline and potentially other sanctions.

XIX. THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR2
268.

Section XIII of the Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606) is amended to
enlarge the scope of the Monitor’s duties to include the authority to direct corrective
actions necessary to achieve compliance with any of this Court’s orders, where MCSO
has failed to comply with the Court’s deadline or is otherwise found not to be in
compliance with a court order. This authority shall include the following, where
necessary to achieve compliance with an order of this Court:
a. directing an MCSO employee to take specific corrective action
b. directing the issuance of administrative broadcasts, briefing boards, or policy
revisions

                                                            
2

This section is proposed by Plaintiffs.

26

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-1 Filed 06/30/16 Page 27 of 27

c. assigning an MCSO employee to a division or bureau charged with tasks
relating to compliance with the Court’s orders
d. removing an MCSO employee from a division or bureau charged with tasks
relating to compliance with the Court’s orders
e. directing the procurement of equipment and the expenditure of resources,
including the use of money, personnel, and consultants, up to an annual limit of
$250,000, which may be exceeded only upon the order of this Court.

XX.
269.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Within two months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO shall ensure that all
employees are briefed and presented the terms of the Order, along with relevant
background information about the Court’s Findings of Fact of May 13, 2016, (Doc.
1677) upon which this Order is based.

27

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 21

Defendants’ Proposed Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction
XIV. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
160.

This Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction incorporates all definitions in the
Court’s first Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606 ¶ 1).

161.

The following terms and definitions shall also apply to this Order:

162.

“Appointing Authority” means the person who is authorized to make employment
related decisions as it relates to intervention and disciplinary actions.

163.

“Misconduct” means a violation of MCSO policies or procedures; violation of federal,
state, or local criminal laws; constitutional violations, whether criminal or civil;
violation of administrative rules; and violation of regulations;
a. “Minor misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline and/or corrective action less severe than a suspension;
b. “Serious misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline of suspension, demotion, or termination;
c. “Misconduct indicating apparent criminal conduct by an employee” means
misconduct that a reasonable and trained Supervisor1 or investigator would
conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent circumstances of
the misconduct;

164.

“ Investigator” means any employee who conducts an administrative investigation of
misconduct, including investigators assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau or
Supervisors in the employee’s Division or Bureau who are assigned to investigate
misconduct;

165.

“Preponderance of the Evidence” means evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient
to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and
impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. Facts which are, more
likely than not, true.

166.

“Principal” means an employee identified as the primary focus of an administrative
investigation and against whom a complaint of misconduct or wrongdoing has been

1

“Supervisor” is defined in the Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606), ¶ 1(mm): “‘Supervisor’ or
‘supervisor’ means a sworn MCSO employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities)
with oversight responsibility for MCSO personnel.”

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 21

made;
“Retaliation” means the act of seeking revenge against someone. However, it is not

167.

retaliation if a MCSO employee takes appropriate disciplinary action against an
employee for violation of a MCSO policy.
168.

XV.
169.

MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, DISCIPLINE, AND GRIEVANCES
The MCSO will ensure that all allegations of employee misconduct, whether internally
discovered or based on a civilian complaint, are fully, fairly, and efficiently
investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by the appropriate standard of
proof and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held
accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due
process. To achieve these outcomes, the MCSO will implement the requirements set
out below.

170.

All policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and other material required by
this Order are subject to the same process of review and comment by the parties and
approval by the Monitor described in Section IV and paragraph 46 of the first
Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606).

171.

Allegations involving Misconduct Investigations, Discipline, and Grievances that are
patently frivolous may be determined by a Supervisor to not merit any further action by
the MCSO, will be noted and reported to PSB, and PSB will make a final determination
whether any additional action is necessary.
A.

172.

Policies Regarding Misconduct Investigations, Discipline, and
Grievances

The MCSO shall conduct a comprehensive review of all policies, procedures, manuals,
and other written directives related to misconduct investigations, employee discipline,
and grievances, and shall provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs new policies or revise
existing policies that incorporate all of the requirements of this Order.

173.

Such policies shall apply to all misconduct investigations of MCSO personnel which
occur after Court enters this supplemental injunction.

174.

The policies shall include the following provisions:
a. Conflicts of interest in investigations shall be prohibited. This provision requires

2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 21

the following.
i.

No employee who was involved in an incident and accused of misconduct
shall conduct or review a misconduct investigation arising out of the
incident.

ii.

No employee who has an external business relationship or close personal
relationship with a principal or witness in a misconduct investigation shall
be involved in the disciplinary process.

b. If an investigator or a commander who is responsible for making disciplinary
findings or determining discipline has knowledge of a conflict of interest affecting
his or her involvement, he or she should immediately inform the Commander of
the Professional Standards Bureau or, if that the holder of that office also suffers
from a conflict, the highest-ranking, non-conflicted chief-level officer at MCSO.
c. Investigations into an employee’s alleged untruthfulness can be initiated by the
Professional Standards Bureau Commander or the Chief Deputy.
d. Any MCSO employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of serious
misconduct by another employee may report the incident to a Supervisor or
directly to the Professional Standards Bureau.
e. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a Supervisor, the Supervisor shall
immediately document and report the information to the Professional Standards
Bureau.
f. Failure to report an act of misconduct may be considered misconduct and may
result in disciplinary or corrective action, up to and including termination, if the
offense warrants it. The presumptive discipline for a failure to report such
allegations may be commensurate with the presumptive discipline for the
underlying misconduct.
g. No MCSO employee ranked below a lieutenant will conduct an investigation at
the District level.
175.

All forms of Retaliation, discouragement, intimidation, or coercion against any person,
civilian, or employee because that person reports misconduct, attempts to make or
makes a misconduct complaint in good faith, or cooperates with an investigation of
misconduct are strictly prohibited.

3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 21

176.

Retaliating against any person who reports or investigates alleged misconduct shall be
considered a serious offense and may result in discipline, up to and including
termination.

177.

The MCSO shall make all reasonable efforts to investigate all complaints and
allegations of misconduct, including third-party and anonymous complaints and
allegations. Employees as well as civilians shall be permitted to make misconduct
allegations anonymously.

178.

The MCSO will not terminate an administrative investigation only because the
complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint or is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to
cooperate with an investigation, or because the principal resigns or retires to avoid
discipline. The MCSO will continue the investigation and reach a finding, where
possible, based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

179.

Employees are required to provide all requested evidence and information in their
custody and control to investigators. Intentionally withholding evidence or information
from an investigator may result in discipline.

180.
181.

Employees’ and applicants’ employment disciplinary history shall be considered in all
hiring, promotion, and transfer decisions..

182.

Commanders shall review the disciplinary history of all employees who are transferred
to their command upon transfer.

183.

The quality of investigators’ investigations and Supervisors’ reviews of investigations
shall be taken into account in their performance evaluations.

184.

There shall be no procedure referred to as a “name-clearing hearing.” All predisciplinary hearings shall be referred to as “pre-determination hearings,” regardless of
the employment status of the principal.
B.

185.

Misconduct-Related Training

The MCSO will continue to provide all Supervisors and all personnel assigned to the
Professional Standards Bureau with 40 hours of comprehensive training on conducting
employee misconduct investigations. This training may include, but may not be limited
to:

4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 21

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview
techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and
case management;
b. the particular challenges of administrative law enforcement misconduct
investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not
clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the
investigation;
c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against
employees;
d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements;
e. the proper application of the appropriate standard of proof;
f. report-writing skills;
g. requirements related to the confidentiality of witnesses and/or
complainants;
h. considerations in handling anonymous complaints;
i. relevant MCSO rules and policies, including protocols related to
administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct; and
j. relevant state and federal law, including the requirements of this Court’s
orders.
186.

All Supervisors and all personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau also
will receive 8 hours of in-service training annually related to conducting misconduct
investigations.

187.

Within six months of approval of the training module by the Monitor, the Parties, and
the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope,
and type to all employees on MCSO’s revised or new policies related to misconduct
investigations, discipline, and grievances. This training shall include instruction on
identifying and reporting misconduct, the consequences for failing to report
misconduct, and the consequences for retaliating against a person for reporting
misconduct or participating in a misconduct investigation.

188.

Within six months of approval of the training module by the Monitor, the Parties, and

5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 21

the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope,
and type to all employees, including dispatchers, to properly handle civilian complaint
intake, including how to provide complaint materials and information and the
consequences for failing to take complaints.
189.

Within six months of approval of the training module by the Monitor, the Parties, and
the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in quality, quantity, scope,
and type to all Supervisors on their obligations when called to a scene by a subordinate
to accept a civilian complaint about that subordinate’s conduct.
C.

190.

Administrative Investigation Review

The MCSO will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely administrative
investigations of all allegations of employee misconduct. All findings will be based on
the appropriate standard of proof. These standards will be clearly delineated in policies,
training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper
application by MCSO disciplinary decision makers.

191.

Upon receipt of any allegation of serious misconduct, whether internally discovered or
based upon a civilian complaint, employees shall immediately notify the Professional
Standards Bureau.

192.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to maintain a centralized electronic
numbering and tracking system for all allegations of misconduct, whether internally
discovered or based upon a civilian complaint. Upon being notified of any allegation of
misconduct, the Professional Standards Bureau will continue to promptly assign a
unique identifier to the incident. If the allegation was made through a civilian
complaint, the unique identifier will be provided to the complainant at the time the
complaint is made. The Professional Standards Bureau’s centralized numbering and
tracking system will continue to maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the
number, nature, and status of all misconduct allegations, from initial intake to final
disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the
interim status, if requested, and final disposition of the complaint. The system will
continue to be used to determine the status of misconduct investigations, as well as for
periodic assessment of compliance with relevant policies and procedures and this
Order, including requirements of timeliness of investigations. The system also continue

6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 21

to be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for investigators.
193.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain a complete file of all documents
within MCSO’s custody and control relating to any investigation and related
disciplinary proceedings, including pre-determination hearings, grievance proceedings,
and appeals to the Maricopa County Law Enforcement Merit Commission or a state
court.

194.
195.
a.
b.
c.
196.

Internal allegations of employee misconduct that are of a minor nature may be
administratively investigated by a trained and qualified Supervisor in the employee’s
District.

197.

MCSO shall continue to require that if at any point during a misconduct investigation
an investigating Supervisor outside of the Professional Standards Bureau believes that
the principal may have committed misconduct of a serious or criminal nature, he or she
shall immediately notify the Professional Standards Bureau, which shall take over the
investigation.

198.

MCSO shall continue to require that the Professional Standards Bureau shall review of
of all investigations assigned outside the Bureau to determine, among other things,
whether the investigation is properly categorized and whether the investigation is being
properly conducted.

199.
200.

The Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau shall ensure that investigation
assignments comply with MCSO policy and all requirements of this Order, including
those related to training, investigators’ disciplinary backgrounds, and conflicts of
interest.

201.

To the extent additional training is necessary, within six months of the approval of any
additional training by the Monitor, the Parties, and the Court , the Professional
Standards Bureau shall include trained personnel to fulfill the requirements of this

7

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 21

Order.
202.

Where appropriate to ensure the fact and appearance of impartiality, the Commander of
the Professional Standards Bureau or the Chief Deputy may refer administrative
misconduct investigations to another law enforcement agency or may retain a qualified
outside investigator to conduct the investigation.

203.
204.
205.
206.
207.
208.

The MCSO will ensure that the qualifications for service as an investigator shall be
clearly defined and that anyone tasked with investigating employee misconduct
possesses excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write
clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an
employee committed misconduct.

209.

In each misconduct investigation, investigators shall make reasonable efforts to:
a. conduct investigations in a thorough and impartial manner designed to determine
the facts;
b. approach investigations without prejudging the facts and without permitting any
preconceived impression of the principal or any witness to cloud the
investigation;
c. identify, collect, and consider all relevant circumstantial, direct, and physical
evidence, including any audio or video recordings;
d. make reasonable attempts to locate and interview all witnesses, including civilian
witnesses;
e. interview a civilian complainant in person;
f. audio and video record all interviews;
g.
h. make credibility determinations, as appropriate; and
i. resolve material inconsistencies between employee, complainant, and witness
statements.

8

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 21

210.

There will be no automatic preference for an employee’s statement over a nonemployee’s statement. Investigators will not disregard a witness’s statement solely
because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or the employee or
because the witness or complainant has a criminal history, but may consider the
witness’s criminal history in evaluating that witness’s statement. In conducting the
investigation, investigators may take into account the record of any witness,
complainant, or officer who has been determined to have been deceptive or untruthful
in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other investigation. Investigators
will not disregard a witnesses’s, complainant, or officers statement solely because that
person has been determined to be deceptive or untruthful in any legal proceeding,
misconduct investigation, or other investigation.

211.

Investigators will evaluate any evidence of potential misconduct uncovered during the
course of the investigation, regardless of whether the potential misconduct was part of
the original allegation.

212.

If the person involved in the encounter with the MCSO pleads guilty or is found guilty
of an offense, Investigators will not consider that information alone to be determinative
of whether an MCSO employee engaged in misconduct, nor will it by itself justify
discontinuing the investigation.

213.

Investigators will make reasonable efforts to complete their administrative
investigations within 85 calendar days2 of the initiation of the investigation (60
calendar days if within a Division). Any request for an extension of time must be
approved in writing by the commanding officer in PSB. Reasonable requests for
extensions of time shall be granted.

214.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to maintain a database to track all
ongoing misconduct cases and shall generate alerts to the responsible investigator and
his/her Supervisor and the Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau when
deadlines are not met.

215.

At the conclusion of each investigation, Investigators will prepare an investigation
report pursuant to the proposed draft policy GH-2.

a.
2

Same as current MCSO policy, GH-2.

9

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 21

b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
216.
a.
b.
c.
d.
217.

For each allegation of misconduct, investigators shall explicitly identify and
recommend one of the following dispositions for each allegation of misconduct in an
administrative investigation:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by preponderance of the
evidence, that the allegation was false or not supported by fact;
b. “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the alleged misconduct is supported by the evidence and justify a
reasonable conclusion of a policy violation;
c. “Not Sustained,” where the investigation determined, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation
or if the initial complaint lacked sufficient details and the complainant was
unable to be reached for follow-up;
d. “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the incident occurred, but the actions of the employee were
within policy guidelines.
e.

10

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 21

218.

For investigations carried out by Supervisors outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau, the investigator shall forward the completed investigation report through his or
her chain of command to his or her Division Commander. The Division Commander
will be responsible for determining which policies have been violated based on the
facts of the investigation, and the preliminary findings for each alleged policy violation.
The Division Commander will then forward the investigative file to the PSB for review.
If the investigation is incomplete, PSB shall return the investigative file for revision
and/or further investigation. If the investigation is complete and throrough, PSB shall
then forward the investigative file to the bureau chief for review. The PSB bureau chief
shall review the investigative file and concur or not concur with the preliminary
findings. If the bureau chief concurs with the findings, he shall sign and date the
investigative file and then forward it to the executive chief for review. The executive
chief shall review the investigative file, concur or not concur with the preliminary
findings, and make a determination whether the findings may be reviewed for
intervention or disciplinary action. If the executive chief does not concur with the
preliminary findings, he shall document the reason. If the executive chief concurs with
the preliminary finding, he shall sign and date the investigative file. If the findings are
sustained, the executive chief shall forward the investigation to the Compliance
Division with direction of what action is to be taken. If the findings are not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated, the executive chief shall forward the investigative file to the
Appointing Authority.

219.

For investigations carried out by the Professional Standards Bureau, once the
investigative report is completed, the PSB investigator shall forward the report to the
PSB Commander. The PSB Commander shall be responsible for determining which
policies have been violated based on the facts of the investigative file, and the
preliminary findings for each alleged policy violation. The PSB Commander shall
forward the investigative file to the Chief Deputy. The Chief Deputy shall review the
investigative file, concur or not concur with the preliminary findings, and make a
determination whether the findings may be reviewed for intervention or disciplinary
action. If the Chief Deputy does not concur with the preliminary findings he shall
document the reason as specified in this Policy. If the Chief Deputy concurs with the

11

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 21

preliminary finding he shall sign and date the investigative file. If the findings are
sustained, the Chief Deputy shall forward the investigation to the Compliance Division
with direction of what action is to be taken. If the findings are not sustained, unfounded,
or exonerated, the Chief Deputy shall forward the investigative file to the Appointing
Authority.
220.

The Appointing Authority shall make final findings on all administrative investigations.
If the investigative file was forwarded to the Compliance Division for intervention or
disciplinary action, the Appointing Authority will direct the Compliance Division
personnel to ensure that proper action is taken. Upon review of the information
presented by the Compliance Division, if the Appointing Authority does not concur
with the direction provided by the executive chief or the Chief Deputy, he shall
document the reasons as specified in this Policy. If the Appointing Authority concurs
with the direction provided by the executive chief or the Chief Deputy, he shall ensure
that proper action is taken as specified in Office Policy GC-17, Employee Disciplinary
Procedures. Final findings will be made following the procedures outlined in Office
Policy GC-17, Employee Disciplinary Procedures. If the findings were not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated, the Appointing Authority shall review the investigative file.
If the Appointing Authority does not concur, he shall document the reason as specified
in this Policy. If the Appointing Authority concurs, he shall document the final
findings and return the investigation to the PSB who shall complete the Closed Case
Notification and, if applicable, send the Final Disposition Letter. This notification shall
be made by the PSB within 10 calendar days of receipt of the investigation from the
appointing authority. A copy of each letter shall be placed in the investigative file. The
investigation shall be stored in the PSB.

221.
222.

Investigations of minor misconduct conducted outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau must be conducted by a Supervisor and not by line-level deputies. After such
investigations, the investigating Supervisor’s Commander shall forward the
investigation file to the Professional Standards Bureau after he or she finds that the
misconduct investigation is complete and the findings are supported by the evidence.
The Professional Standards Bureau shall review the misconduct investigation to ensure

12

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 21

that it is complete and that the findings are supported by the evidence. The Professional
Standards Bureau shall order additional investigation when it appears that there is
additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improving
the reliability or credibility of the findings.
223.

At the discretion of the Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau, a
misconduct investigation may be assigned or re-assigned to another Supervisor with the
approval of the Bureau Commander for investigation, whether within or outside of the
District or Bureau in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the original
Supervisor for further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall
be explained in writing.

224.

If, after an investigation of minor misconduct conducted outside of the Professional
Standards Bureau, an employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the investigating
Supervisor’s Commander shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline and/or
corrective action. Where the incident indicates policy, or training, concerns, the
Commander shall also ensure that necessary training is delivered and that policy,
tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved.

225.

If, after an investigation conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau, an
employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the Commander of the Professional
Standards Bureau shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline or corrective action.

226.
227.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all administrative investigation
reports and files after they are completed for record-keeping in accordance with MCSO
policies for record-keeping.

F.
228.

Discipline

The MCSO will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports
with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the
allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently
applied and documented.

229.

In order to ensure consistency in the imposition of discipline, the MCSO will review its
current disciplinary matrices and will amend them as necessary to ensure that they:

13

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 14 of 21

a. establish a presumptive range of discipline for each type of violation;
b. an employee’s prior violations may be considered;
c. set out defined mitigating and aggravating factors;
d. prohibit consideration of the employee’s race, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, national origin, age, ethnicity;
e. prohibit consideration of the high (or low) profile nature of the incident,
including media coverage or other public attention;
f. clearly define forms of discipline and define classes of discipline as
used in policies and operations manuals;
g. provide that corrective action such as coaching or training is not
considered to be discipline and should not be used as a substitute for
discipline where the matrix calls for discipline;
h.
i.
j. require that any departures from the discipline recommended under the
disciplinary matrices be justified in writing.
230.

In cases involving more than one offense, the most serious offense shall establish the
Category of Offense pursuant to MCSO’s disciplinary matrices. Other offenses may
then be considered as aggravating circumstances. Each act or omission that results in a
sustained misconduct allegation may be treated as a separate offense for the purposes of
imposing discipline.

231.

The Appointing Authority shall make preliminary determinations of the discipline to be
imposed in all cases, other than those handled at the District level, and shall document
his or her disciplinary decisions in writing, including the presumptive range of
discipline for the sustained misconduct allegation, the employee’s disciplinary history,
all mitigating and aggravating factors considered.
D.

232.

Pre-Determination Hearings

If the Appointing Authority makes a preliminary determination that major discipline
(defined as suspension, demotion, or termination) should be imposed, a designated

14

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 15 of 21

member of MCSO’s command staff will conduct a pre-determination hearing and will
provide the employee with an opportunity to be heard.
233.

Pre-determination hearings will be audio recorded in their entirety, and the recording
shall be maintained with the administrative investigation file.

234.

If an employee provides new or additional evidence at a pre-determination hearing, the
hearing will be suspended and the matter will be returned to Professional Standards
Bureau for consideration or further investigation, as necessary. If after any further
investigation or consideration of the new or additional evidence, there is no change in
discipline, the matter will go back to the pre-determination hearing. If, however, the
new or additional evidence will result in a change in discipline, the Professional
Standards Bureau may initiate a separate misconduct investigation if it appears that the
employee intentionally withheld the new or additional evidence during the initial
misconduct investigation.

235.

If the Appointing Authority changes the preliminary findings of discipline as a result
of the pre-determination hearing, the Appointing Authority will set forth in writing the
justification for doing so. This justification will be appended to the investigation file.

236.

MCSO policy shall provide that the Appointing Authority conducting a predetermination hearing should apply the disciplinary matrix and set forth clear
guidelines for the grounds on which a deviation is permitted.
a.
b.
c.

237.
E.
238.

Criminal Misconduct Investigations

Whenever an investigator finds evidence of misconduct during an administrative
misconduct investigation indicating criminal conduct by an employee, MCSO will
continue to require the investigator to immediately notify the Commander of the
Professional Standards Bureau. If the administrative misconduct investigation is being
conducted by a Supervisor outside of the Professional Standards Bureau, the
Professional Standards Bureau shall immediately take over the investigation.

239.

15

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 16 of 21

240.

If a misconduct allegation will be investigated criminally, the Professional Standards
Bureau will not compel an interview of the principal pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey,
385 U.S. 493 (1967) until it has first consulted with the investigator. The Professional
Standards Bureau shall document in writing all decisions regarding compelling an
interview, decisions to hold any aspect of an administrative investigation in abeyance,
and all consultations with the criminal investigator.

241.

The Professional Standards Bureau will continue to ensure that investigators
conducting a criminal investigation do not have access to any statements by the
principal that were compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey.

242.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to complete the administrative
investigation regardless of the outcome of any criminal investigation, including cases in
which the prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after
the initiation of criminal charges. The relevant provisions of MCSO policies and the
operations manual for the Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to remind
members of the Bureau that administrative and criminal cases are held to different
standards of proof, that the elements of a policy violation differ from those of a
criminal offense, and that the purposes of the administrative investigation process differ
from those of the criminal investigation process.

243.

MCSO shall continue to require that a decision must be documented in writing and
referred to the Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau if the investigator
conducting the criminal investigation decides to close the investigation without
referring it to a prosecuting agency. MCSO shall continue to require that the
Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau separately consider whether to refer
the matter to a prosecuting agency and shall document the decision in writing.

244.

If the Professional Standards Bureau investigator conducting the criminal investigation
decides to refer the matter to a prosecuting agency, the Professional Standards Bureau
shall review the information provided to the prosecuting agency to ensure that it is of
sufficient quality and completeness.

245.

If the prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after the
initiation of criminal charges, the Professional Standards Bureau shall request an
explanation for this decision, which shall be documented in writing and appended to the

16

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 17 of 21

criminal investigation report.
246.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all criminal investigation reports and
files after they are completed for record-keeping, subject to MCSO’s document
retention policies.
F.

247.

Civilian Complaint Intake, Communication, and Tracking

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the Monitor, in consultation with the
Community Advisory Board, will develop and implement a program to promote
awareness throughout the Maricopa County community about the process for filing
complaints about the conduct of MCSO employees.

248.

The MCSO will continue to accept all civilian complaints, whether submitted verbally
or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on the
complainant’s behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the
complainant. MCSO will document all complaints in writing.

249.

The MCSO will continue to post and maintain at the reception desk at MCSO
headquarters and in locations at all District stations that are clearly visible to members
of the public permanent placards clearly and simply describing the civilian complaint
process. MCSO shall continue to have placards that include relevant contact
information, including telephone numbers, email addresses, and Internet sites. The
placards shall be in both English and Spanish.

250.
251.
252.

The MCSO will also make complaint forms available at locations around the County
including: the websites of MCSO; the lobby of MCSO’s headquarters; each patrol
District; and the Maricopa County government offices.

253.
254.

The MCSO’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be
construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint.

255.

MCSO will continue to ensure that complaint forms will be made available, in English
and Spanish. The MCSO will make reasonable efforts to ensure that complainants who
speak other languages (including sign language) and have limited English proficiency
can file complaints in their preferred language. The fact that a complainant does not

17

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 18 of 21

speak, read, or write English, or is deaf or hard of hearing will not be grounds to
decline to accept or investigate a complaint.
256.

In the course of investigating a civilian complaint, the Professional Standards Bureau
will continue to provide written communication to the complainant as follows:

a. the Professional Standards Bureau will send non-anonymous
complainants a written notice of receipt, including the tracking number
assigned to the complaint. The notice will inform the complainant how
he or she may contact the Professional Standards Bureau to inquire
about the status of a complaint;
b. when the Professional Standards Bureau concludes its investigation, the
Bureau will notify the complainant that the investigation has been
concluded and inform the complainant of the Bureau’s findings.
c.
257.

Notwithstanding the above written communications, a complainant and/or his/her
representative may contact the Professional Standards Bureau at any time to determine
the status of his or her complaint, and MCSO will provide the status.

258.

The Professional Standards Bureau will conduct an annual assessment of the types of
complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns and
trends.

Transparency Measures

G.
259.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
260.
261.

18

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 19 of 21

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.

Testing Program for Civilian Complaint Intake

H.
262.
263.
264.
265.
266.
267.
268.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

XVI. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
269.
270.

19

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 20 of 21

XVII. SUPERVISION AND STAFFING
271.
272.
273.
274.
275.

276.
XVIII.
277.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION

MCSO shall continue to ensure that when it receives a document preservation notice
from a litigant, it shall promptly communicate that document preservation notice to all
personnel who might possibly have responsive documents.

278.

MCSO shall continue to ensure that when it receives a request for documents in the
course of litigation, it shall:
a.

communicate the document request to all personnel who might reasonably be in
possession of responsive documents.

b. ensure that all existing electronic files, including email files and data stored on
networked drives are preserved.
c. ensure that a reasonably thorough and adequate search for documents is
conducted, and that each employee who might reasonably be in possession of
responsive documents conducts a reasonable search of all relevant physical and
electronic files.
279.

280.

MCSO policy shall provide that all employees must comply with document
preservation and production requirements and that violators of this policy may be
subject to disciplinary action.

XIX. THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR3
281.
a.
b.
3

This section is proposed by Plaintiffs.

20

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-2 Filed 06/30/16 Page 21 of 21

c.
d.
e.

XX.
282.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Within two months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO shall ensure that all personnel
affected by this order are briefed and presented the terms of the Order, along with
relevant background information about the Court’s Findings of Fact of May 13, 2016,
(Doc. 1677) upon which this Order is based.

21

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 30

Redline Comparison of Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Proposed Second
Supplemental Permanent Injunction with Defendants’ Proposed Injunction

XIV. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS
160.

This Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction incorporates all definitions in the
Court’s first Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606 ¶ 1).

161.
161.162.

The following terms and definitions shall also apply to this Order:
“Appointing Authority” means the person who is authorized to make employment
related decisions as it relates to intervention and disciplinary actions.

162.163.

“Misconduct” means a violation of MCSO policies or procedures; violation of federal,
state, or local criminal laws; constitutional violations, whether criminal or civil;
violation of administrative rules; and violation of regulations;
a. “Minor misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline and/or corrective action less severe than a suspension;
b. “Serious misconduct” means misconduct that, if sustained, would result in
discipline of suspension, demotion, or termination;
c. “Misconduct indicating apparent criminal conduct by an employee” means
misconduct that a reasonable and trained Supervisor1 or misconduct investigator
would conclude could result in criminal charges due to the apparent
circumstances of the misconduct;

163.164.

“Misconduct Iinvestigator” means any employee who conducts an administrative
investigation of misconduct, including investigators assigned to the Professional
Standards Bureau or Supervisors in the employee’s Division or Bureau who are
assigned to investigate minor misconduct;

164.165.

“Preponderance of the Evidence” means evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient
to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and
impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. Facts which are, more
likely than not, true.

                                                            
1

“Supervisor” is defined in the Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606), ¶ 1(mm): “‘Supervisor’ or
‘supervisor’ means a sworn MCSO employee at the rank of sergeant or above (or anyone acting in those capacities)
with oversight responsibility for MCSO personnel.”

1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 30

165.166.

“Principal” means an employee identified as the primary focus of an administrative
investigation and against whom a complaint of misconduct or wrongdoing has been
made; employee against whom an allegation of misconduct or wrongdoing has been
made;

166.167.

“Retaliation” means the act of seeking revenge against someone. However, it is not
retaliation if a MCSO employee takes appropriate disciplinary action against an
employee for violation of a MCSO policy.

167.168.

“Tester” means a person who poses as a civilian making a fictitious complaint for
assessment purposes.

XV.
168.169.

MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, DISCIPLINE, AND GRIEVANCES
The MCSO will ensure that all allegations of employee misconduct, whether internally
discovered or based on a civilian complaint, are fully, fairly, and efficiently
investigated; that all investigative findings are supported by the appropriate standard of
proof and documented in writing; and that all officers who commit misconduct are held
accountable pursuant to a disciplinary system that is fair, consistent, and provides due
process. To achieve these outcomes, the MCSO will implement the requirements set
out below.

169.170.

All policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and other material required by
this Order are subject to the same process of review and comment by the parties and
approval by the Monitor described in Section IV and paragraph 46 of the first
Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606).

170.171.

Allegations involving Misconduct Investigations, Discipline, and Grievances that are
patently frivolous may be determined by a Supervisor to not merit any further action by
the MCSO, will be noted and reported to PSB, and PSB will make a final determination
whether any additional action is necessary.
A.

171.172.

Policies Regarding Misconduct Investigations, Discipline, and
Grievances

Within two months of the entry of this Order, Tthe MCSO shall conduct a
comprehensive review of all policies, procedures, manuals, and other written directives
related to misconduct investigations, employee discipline, and grievances, and shall
adopt provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs new policies or revise existing policies that

2

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 30

incorporate all of the requirements of this Order.
172.173.

Such policies shall apply to all misconduct investigations of MCSO personnel which
occur after Court enters this supplemental injunction.

173.174.

The policies shall include the following provisions:
a. Conflicts of interest in misconduct investigations shall be prohibited. This
provision requires the following.
i.

No employee who was involved in an incident and accused of misconduct
shall conduct or review a misconduct investigation arising out of the
incident.

ii.

No employee who has an external business relationship or close personal
relationship with a principal or witness in a misconduct investigation shall
conduct or reviewbe involved in the disciplinary process the misconduct
investigation.

b. If aan misconduct investigator or a commander who is responsible for making
disciplinary findings or determining discipline has knowledge of a conflict of
interest affecting his or her involvement, he or she should immediately inform the
CommanderDirector of the Professional Standards Bureau or, if that the holder of
that office also suffers from a conflict, the highest-ranking, non-conflicted chieflevel officer at MCSO.
c. Investigations into an employee’s alleged untruthfulness can be initiated by the
Professional Standards Bureau Commander and notor only by the Chief Deputy.
d. Any MCSO employee who observes or becomes aware of any act of serious
misconduct by another employee mayshall report the incident to a Supervisor or
directly to the Professional Standards Bureau.
e. Where an act of misconduct is reported to a Supervisor, the Supervisor shall
immediately document and report the information to the Professional Standards
Bureau.
f. Failure to report an act of misconduct may be considered misconduct and may
shall result in disciplinary and/or corrective action, up to and including
termination, if the offense warrants it. The presumptive discipline for a failure to
report such allegations maywill be commensurate with the presumptive discipline

3

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 30

for the underlying misconduct.
g. No MCSO employee ranked below a lieutenant will conduct an investigation at
the District level.
174.175.

All forms of Rretaliation, discouragement, intimidation, or coercion, or adverse action
against any person, civilian, or employee because that person reports misconduct,
attempts to make or makes a misconduct complaint in good faith, or cooperates with an
investigation of misconduct are strictly prohibited.

175.176.

Retaliating against any person who reports or investigates alleged misconduct shall be
considered a serious offense and may shall result in discipline, up to and including
termination.

176.177.

The MCSO shall make all reasonable efforts to investigate all complaints and
allegations of misconduct, including third-party and anonymous complaints and
allegations. Employees as well as civilians shall be permitted to make misconduct
allegations anonymously.

177.178.

The MCSO will not terminate an administrative investigation only because the
complainant seeks to withdraw the complaint or is unavailable, unwilling, or unable to
cooperate with an investigation, or because the principal resigns or retires to avoid
discipline. The MCSO will continue the investigation and reach a finding, where
possible, based on the evidence and investigatory procedures and techniques available.

178.179.

Employees are required to provide all requestedrelevant evidence and information in
their custody and control to misconduct investigators. Intentionally withholding
evidence or information from aan misconduct investigator shall may result in
discipline.

179.180.

Employees who are named as a principal in an ongoing investigation of serious
misconduct shall be ineligible for promotion or a salary increase during the pendency of
the investigation.

180.181.

Employees’ and applicants’ employment disciplinary history shall be considered in all
hiring, promotion, and transfer decisions, and this consideration shall be documented.
Employees and applicants whose disciplinary history demonstrates a pattern of
misconduct, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or Category 7 offense from
MCSO’s disciplinary matrices, shall be presumptively ineligible for hire or promotion.

4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 30

MCSO shall provide a written justification for hiring or promoting an employee or
applicant who has a history demonstrating a pattern of misconduct or a previous
sustained Category 6 or Category 7 offense. This written justification shall be included
in the employee’s employment file.
181.182.

Commanders shall review the disciplinary history of all employees who are transferred
to their command upon transfer.

182.183.

The quality of investigators’ misconduct investigations and Supervisors’ reviews of
investigations shall be taken into account in their performance evaluations.

183.184.

There shall be no procedure referred to as a “name-clearing hearing.” All predisciplinary hearings shall be referred to as “pre-determination hearings,” regardless of
the employment status of the principal.
B.

184.185.

Misconduct-Related Training

Within six months of the entry of this Order, Tthe MCSO will continue to provide all
Supervisors and all personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau with 40
hours of comprehensive training on conducting employee misconduct investigations.
This training may include, but may not be limited to: will include instruction in:

a. investigative skills, including proper interrogation and interview
techniques; gathering and objectively analyzing evidence; and data and
case management;
b. the particular challenges of administrative law enforcement misconduct
investigations, including identifying alleged misconduct that is not
clearly stated in the complaint or that becomes apparent during the
investigation;
c. properly weighing the credibility of civilian witnesses against
employees;
d. using objective evidence to resolve inconsistent statements;
e. the proper application of the appropriate standard of proof;
f. report-writing skills;

5

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 30

g. requirements related to the confidentiality of witnesses and/or
complainants;
h. considerations in handling anonymous complaints;
i. relevant MCSO rules and policies, including protocols related to
administrative investigations of alleged officer misconduct; and
j. relevant state and federal law, including the requirements of this Court’s
orders.
185.186.

All Supervisors and all personnel assigned to the Professional Standards Bureau also
will receive 8 hours of in-service training annually related to conducting misconduct
investigations.

186.187.

Within six months of the entry of this Order of approval of the training module by the
Monitor, the Parties, and the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in
quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all employees on
MCSO’s revised or new policies related to misconduct investigations, discipline, and
grievances. This training shall include instruction on identifying and reporting
misconduct, the consequences for failing to report misconduct, and the consequences
for retaliating against a person for reporting misconduct or participating in a
misconduct investigation.

187.188.

Within six months of the entry of this Order approval of the training module by the
Monitor, the Parties, and the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in
quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all employees,
including dispatchers, to properly handle civilian complaint intake, including how to
provide complaint materials and information and the consequences for failing to take
complaints.

188.189.

Within six months of the entry of this Order approval of the training module by the
Monitor, the Parties, and the Court, the MCSO will provide training that is adequate in
quality, quantity, scope, and type, as determined by the Monitor, to all Supervisors on
their obligations when called to a scene by a subordinate to accept a civilian complaint
about that subordinate’s conduct.
C.

Administrative Misconduct Investigations Review
6

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 30

189.190.

The MCSO will conduct objective, comprehensive, and timely administrative
investigations of all allegations of employee misconduct. All findings will be based on
the appropriate standard of proof. These standards will be clearly delineated in policies,
training, and procedures and accompanied by detailed examples to ensure proper
application by MCSO disciplinary decision makersmisconduct investigators.

190.191.

Upon receipt of any allegation of serious misconduct, whether internally discovered or
based upon a civilian complaint, employees shall immediately notify the Professional
Standards Bureau.

191.192.

Effective immediately, Tthe Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to maintain a
centralized electronic numbering and tracking system for all allegations of misconduct,
whether internally discovered or based upon a civilian complaint. Upon being notified
of any allegation of misconduct, the Professional Standards Bureau will continue to
promptly assign a unique identifier to the incident. If the allegation was made through a
civilian complaint, the unique identifier will be provided to the complainant at the time
the complaint is made. The Professional Standards Bureau’s centralized numbering and
tracking system will continue to maintain accurate and reliable data regarding the
number, nature, and status of all misconduct allegations, from initial intake to final
disposition, including investigation timeliness and notification to the complainant of the
interim status, if requested, and final disposition of the complaint. The system will
continue to be used to determine the status of misconduct investigations, as well as for
periodic assessment of compliance with relevant policies and procedures and this
Order, including requirements of timeliness of investigations. The system also continue
towill be used to monitor and maintain appropriate caseloads for misconduct
investigators.

192.193.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain a complete file of all documents
within MCSO’s custody and control relating to any investigation and related
disciplinary proceedings, including pre-determination hearings, grievance proceedings,
and appeals to the Maricopa County Law Enforcement Merit Commission or a state
court.

193.194.

Upon being notified of any allegation of misconduct, the Professional Standards Bureau
will make an initial determination of the category of the alleged offense, to be used for

7

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 30

the purposes of assigning the administrative investigation to an investigator. After
initially categorizing the allegation, the Professional Standards Bureau will promptly
assign a misconduct investigator.
194.195.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall administratively investigate:
a. misconduct allegations of a serious nature, including any allegation that may
result in suspension, demotion, or termination;
b. misconduct indicating apparent criminal conduct by an employee; and
c. all civilian complaints.

195.196.

Internal allegations of employee misconduct that are of a minor nature may be
administratively investigated by a trained and qualified Supervisor in the employee’s
District.

196.197.

MCSO shall continue to require that iIf at any point during a misconduct investigation
an investigating Supervisor outside of the Professional Standards Bureau believes that
the principal may have committed misconduct of a serious or criminal nature, he or she
shall immediately notify the Professional Standards Bureau, which shall take over the
investigation.

197.198.

MCSO shall continue to require that tThe Professional Standards Bureau shall review
of all investigations assigned outside the Bureau to determine, among other things,
whether the investigation remain is properly categorized and assigned and whether the
investigation is being properly conducted.

198.199.

When an allegation of misconduct contains multiple categories of offenses, the most
serious offense shall be used for the purposes of assigning a misconduct investigator.

199.200.

The Commander Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall ensure that
investigation assignments comply with MCSO policy and all requirements of this
Order, including those related to training, investigators’ disciplinary backgrounds, and
conflicts of interest.

200.201.

To the extent additional training is necessary, within six months of the approval of any
additional training by the Monitor, the Parties, and the Court entry of this order, the
Professional Standards Bureau shall include sufficient trained personnel to fulfill the
requirements of this Order.

201.202.

Where appropriate to ensure the fact and appearance of impartiality, the Commander

8

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 30

Director of the Professional Standards Bureau or the Chief Deputy may refer
administrative misconduct investigations to another law enforcement agency or may
retain a qualified outside investigator to conduct the investigation.
202.203.

The Professional Standards Bureau will be headed by a qualified Director who is not a
current or former employee of the MCSO. The Director of the Professional Standards
Bureau will have ultimate authority within the MCSO for reaching the findings of
investigations and determining any discipline to be imposed.

203.204.

The Court will select the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau.

204.205.

Within two weeks of the entry of this Order, the Parties may each submit to the Court
the names and resumes of three candidates to be considered for the position of Director
of the Professional Standards Bureau.

205.206.

The Court will consider these candidates but will not be limited to selecting the
Director from among them.

206.207.

To promote independence and the confidentiality of investigations, the Professional
Standards Bureau shall be physically located in a facility that is separate from other
MCSO facilities, such as a professional office building or commercial retail space. This
facility shall be easily accessible to the public, present a non-intimidating atmosphere,
and have sufficient space and personnel for receiving members of the public and for
permitting them to file complaints.

207.208.

The MCSO will ensure that the qualifications for service as an misconduct investigator
shall be clearly defined and that anyone tasked with investigating employee misconduct
possesses excellent investigative skills, a reputation for integrity, the ability to write
clear reports, and the ability to be fair and objective in determining whether an
employee committed misconduct. Employees with a history of multiple sustained
misconduct allegations, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or Category 7
offense from MCSO’s disciplinary matrices will be presumptively ineligible to conduct
misconduct investigations. Employees with a history of conducting deficient
investigations will also be presumptively ineligible for these duties.

208.209.

In each misconduct investigation, investigators shall make reasonable efforts to:
a. conduct investigations in a thoroughrigorous and impartial manner designed to
determine the facts;

9

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 30

b. approach investigations without prejudging the facts and without permitting any
preconceived impression of the principal or any witness to cloud the
investigation;
c. identify, collect, and consider all relevant circumstantial, direct, and physical
evidence, including any audio or video recordings;
d. make reasonable attempts to locate and interview all witnesses, including civilian
witnesses;
e. make reasonable attempts to interview any civilian complainant in person;
f. audio and video record all interviews;
g. when conducting interviews, avoid asking leading questions and never ask
employees or witnesses any questions that may suggest justifications for the
alleged misconduct;
h. make credibility determinations, as appropriate; and
i. make all reasonable efforts to resolve material inconsistencies between employee,
complainant, and witness statements.
209.210.

There will be no automatic preference for an employee’s statement over a nonemployee’s statement. Misconduct Iinvestigators will not disregard a witness’s
statement solely because the witness has some connection to either the complainant or
the employee or because the witness or complainant has a criminal history, but may
consider the witness’s criminal history in evaluating that witness’s statement. In
conducting the investigation, misconduct investigators may take into account the record
of any witness, complainant, or officer who has been determined to have been
deceptive or untruthful in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other
investigation. Investigators will not disregard a witnesses’s, complainant, or officers
statement solely because that person has been determined to be deceptive or untruthful
in any legal proceeding, misconduct investigation, or other investigation.

210.211.

Misconduct iInvestigators will evaluate any evidence of potential misconduct
uncovered during the course of the investigation, regardless of whether the potential
misconduct was part of the original allegation.

211.212.

If the person involved in the encounter with the MCSO pleads guilty or is found guilty
of an offense, misconduct Iinvestigators will not consider that information alone to be

10

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 30

determinative of whether an MCSO employee engaged in misconduct, nor will it by
itself justify discontinuing the investigation. MCSO training materials and policies on
internal investigations will acknowledge explicitly that the fact of a criminal conviction
has no bearing on whether an MCSO employee engaged in misconduct against the
person, and that the mission of a misconduct investigator is to determine whether any
misconduct occurred.
212.213.

Misconduct Iinvestigators will make reasonable efforts to complete their administrative
investigations within 85 calendar days of the initiation of the investigation (60 calendar
days if within a Division). Any request for an extension of time must be approved in
writing by the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau the commanding officer in
PSB. Reasonable requests for extensions of time shall be granted.

213.214.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to maintain a database to track all
ongoing misconduct cases and shall generate alerts to the responsible investigator and
his/her Supervisor and the Director Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau
when deadlines are not met.

214.215.

At the conclusion of each investigation, misconduct Iinvestigators will prepare an
investigation report pursuant to the proposed draft policy GH-2. The report will
include:

a. a narrative description of the incident,;
b. documentation of all evidence that was gathered, including names,
phone numbers, and addresses of witnesses to the incident. In situations
in which there are no known witnesses, the report will specifically state
this fact. In situations in which witnesses were present but
circumstances prevented the misconduct investigator from determining
the identification, phone number, or address of those witnesses, the
report will state the reasons why. The report also will include all
available identifying information for anyone who refuses to provide a
statement;
c. documentation of whether employees were interviewed, and a transcript
or recording of those interviews;
11

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 30

d. the names of all other MCSO employees who witnessed the incident;
e. the misconduct investigator’s evaluation of the incident, based on his or
her review of the evidence gathered, including a determination of
whether the employee’s actions appear to be within MCSO policy,
procedure, regulations, orders, or other standards of conduct required of
MCSO employees;
f. in cases where credibility determinations must be made, explicit
credibility findings, including a precise description of the evidence that
supports or detracts from the person’s credibility;
g. in cases where material inconsistencies must be resolved between
complainant, employee, and witness statements, explicit resolution of
the inconsistencies, including a precise description of the evidence
relied upon to resolve the inconsistencies;
h. an assessment of the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment
concerns, including any recommendations for how those concerns will
be addressed;
i. if a weapon was used, documentation that the employee’s certification
and training for the weapon were current; and
j. documentation of recommendations for initiation of the disciplinary
process.
215.216.

In assessing the incident for policy, training, tactical, or equipment concerns,
investigation reports will include an assessment of whether:
a. the law enforcement action was in compliance with training and legal standards;
b. the use of different tactics should or could have been employed;
c. the incident indicates a need for additional training, counseling, or other nondisciplinary corrective actions; and
d. the incident suggests that the MCSO should revise its policies, strategies,
tactics, or training.

216.217.

For each allegation of misconduct, misconduct investigators shall explicitly identify

12

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 30

and recommend one of the following dispositions for each allegation of misconduct in
an administrative investigation:
a. “Unfounded,” where the investigation determines, by clear and convincing
evidence preponderance of the evidence, that the allegation was false or not
supported by factalleged misconduct did not occur or did not involve the
principal employee;
b. “Sustained,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the alleged misconduct did occur is supported by the evidence
and justify a reasonable conclusion of a policy violation;
c. “Not Sustained,” where the investigation is unable to determinedetermined, by a
preponderance of the evidence, whether the alleged misconduct occurredthat
there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation or if the
initial complaint lacked sufficient details and the complainant was unable to be
reached for follow-up;
d. “Exonerated,” where the investigation determines, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the incident occurred, but the actions of the employee were
within policy guidelinesthat the alleged conduct did occur but did not violate
MCSO policies, procedures, or training.; or
e. “Sustained violation not based on original complaint,” where the investigation
determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that misconduct did occur that
was not alleged in the original complaint but that was discovered during the
misconduct investigation.
218.

For investigations carried out by Supervisors outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau, the investigator shall forward the completed investigation report through his or
her chain of command to his or her Division Commander. The Division Commander
will be responsible for determining which policies have been violated based on the
facts of the investigation, and the preliminary findings for each alleged policy violation.
The Division Commander will then forward the investigative file to the PSB for review.
If the investigation is incomplete, PSB shall return the investigative file for revision
and/or further investigation. If the investigation is complete and throrough, PSB shall
then forward the investigative file to the bureau chief for review. The PSB bureau chief

13

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 14 of 30

shall review the investigative file and concur or not concur with the preliminary
findings. If the bureau chief concurs with the findings, he shall sign and date the
investigative file and then forward it to the executive chief for review. The executive
chief shall review the investigative file, concur or not concur with the preliminary
findings, and make a determination whether the findings may be reviewed for
intervention or disciplinary action. If the executive chief does not concur with the
preliminary findings, he shall document the reason. If the executive chief concurs with
the preliminary finding, he shall sign and date the investigative file. If the findings are
sustained, the executive chief shall forward the investigation to the Compliance
Division with direction of what action is to be taken. If the findings are not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated, the executive chief shall forward the investigative file to the
Appointing Authority.
217.219.

For investigations carried out by the Professional Standards Bureau, once the
investigative report is completed, the PSB investigator shall forward the report to the
PSB Commander. The PSB Commander shall be responsible for determining which
policies have been violated based on the facts of the investigative file, and the
preliminary findings for each alleged policy violation. The PSB Commander shall
forward the investigative file to the Chief Deputy. The Chief Deputy shall review the
investigative file, concur or not concur with the preliminary findings, and make a
determination whether the findings may be reviewed for intervention or disciplinary
action. If the Chief Deputy does not concur with the preliminary findings he shall
document the reason as specified in this Policy. If the Chief Deputy concurs with the
preliminary finding he shall sign and date the investigative file. If the findings are
sustained, the Chief Deputy shall forward the investigation to the Compliance Division
with direction of what action is to be taken. If the findings are not sustained, unfounded,
or exonerated, the Chief Deputy shall forward the investigative file to the Appointing
Authority. the investigator shall forward the completed investigation report to the
Director. The Commander or Director shall review the report to ensure that it is
complete and that the findings are supported using the appropriate standard of proof.
The Commander or Director shall order additional investigation when it appears that
there is additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or

14

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 15 of 30

improving the reliability or credibility of the findings.
218.220.

The Appointing Authority shall make final findings on all administrative investigations.
If the investigative file was forwarded to the Compliance Division for intervention or
disciplinary action, the Appointing Authority will direct the Compliance Division
personnel to ensure that proper action is taken. Upon review of the information
presented by the Compliance Division, if the Appointing Authority does not concur
with the direction provided by the executive chief or the Chief Deputy, he shall
document the reasons as specified in this Policy. If the Appointing Authority concurs
with the direction provided by the executive chief or the Chief Deputy, he shall ensure
that proper action is taken as specified in Office Policy GC-17, Employee Disciplinary
Procedures. Final findings will be made following the procedures outlined in Office
Policy GC-17, Employee Disciplinary Procedures. If the findings were not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated, the Appointing Authority shall review the investigative file.
If the Appointing Authority does not concur, he shall document the reason as specified
in this Policy. If the Appointing Authority concurs, he shall document the final
findings and return the investigation to the PSB who shall complete the Closed Case
Notification and, if applicable, send the Final Disposition Letter. This notification shall
be made by the PSB within 10 calendar days of receipt of the investigation from the
appointing authority. A copy of each letter shall be placed in the investigative file. The
investigation shall be stored in the PSB.Where the or Director determines that the
findings of the investigation report are not supported by the appropriate standard of
proof, the Commander or Director shall document the reasons for this determination
and shall include this documentation as an addendum to the original investigation. The
investigator’s Supervisor shall take appropriate action to address the inadequately
supported determination and any investigative deficiencies that led to it. Commanders
and the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall be responsible for the
accuracy and completeness of investigation reports prepared by misconduct
investigators under their command.

219.221.

Where a misconduct investigator conducts a deficient misconduct investigation, the
investigator shall receive the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. A
misconduct investigator’s failure to improve the quality of his or her investigations

15

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 16 of 30

after corrective and/or disciplinary action is taken shall be grounds for demotion and/or
removal from a supervisory position or the Professional Standards Bureau.
220.222.

Investigations of minor misconduct conducted outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau must be conducted by a Supervisor and not by line-level deputies. After such
investigations, the investigating Supervisor’s Commander shall forward the
investigation file to the Professional Standards Bureau after he or she finds that the
misconduct investigation is complete and the findings are supported by the evidence.
The Professional Standards Bureau shall review the misconduct investigation to ensure
that it is complete and that the findings are supported by the evidence. The Professional
Standards Bureau shall order additional investigation when it appears that there is
additional relevant evidence that may assist in resolving inconsistencies or improving
the reliability or credibility of the findings. Where the findings of the investigation
report are not supported by the appropriate standard of proof, the Professional
Standards Bureau shall document the reasons for this determination and shall include
this documentation as an addendum to the original investigation.

221.223.

At the discretion of the CommanderDirector of the Professional Standards Bureau, a
misconduct investigation may be assigned or re-assigned to another Supervisor with the
approval of the Bureau Commander for investigation, whether within or outside of the
District or Bureau in which the incident occurred, or may be returned to the original
Supervisor for further investigation or analysis. This assignment or re-assignment shall
be explained in writing.

222.224.

IfWhere, after an investigation of minor misconduct conducted outside of the
Professional Standards Bureau, an employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the
investigating Supervisor’s Commander shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline
and/or corrective action. Where the incident indicates policy, or training, tactical, or
equipment concerns, the Commander shall also ensure that necessary training is
delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are resolved.

223.225.

IfWhere, after an investigation conducted by the Professional Standards Bureau, an
employee’s actions are found to violate policy, the Director Commander of the
Professional Standards Bureau shall direct and ensure appropriate discipline and/or
corrective action. Where the incident indicates policy, training, tactical, or equipment

16

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 17 of 30

concerns, the Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall also ensure that
necessary training is delivered and that policy, tactical, or equipment concerns are
resolved.
224.226.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall conduct targeted and random reviews of
discipline imposed by Commanders for minor misconduct to ensure compliance with
MCSO policy and legal standards.

225.227.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all administrative investigation
reports and files after they are completed for record-keeping in accordance with MCSO
policies for record-keeping.

F.
226.228.

Discipline

The MCSO will ensure that discipline for sustained allegations of misconduct comports
with due process, and is consistently applied, fair, and based on the nature of the
allegation, and that mitigating and aggravating factors are identified and consistently
applied and documented.

227.229.

In order to ensure consistency in the imposition of discipline, the MCSO will review its
current disciplinary matrices and will amend them as necessary to ensure that they:

a. establish a presumptive range of discipline for each type of violation;
b. increase the presumptive discipline based on an employee’s prior
violations may be considered;
c. set out defined mitigating and aggravating factors;
d. prohibit consideration of the employee’s race, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, national origin, age, or ethnicity;
e. prohibit nepotism in the administration of discipline;
f. prohibit consideration of the high (or low) profile nature of the incident,
including media coverage or other public attention;
g. clearly define forms of discipline and define classes of discipline as
used in policies and operations manuals;

17

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 18 of 30

h. provide that corrective action such as coaching or training is not
considered to be discipline and should not be used as a substitute for
discipline where the matrix calls for discipline;
i. provide that the MCSO will not take only non-disciplinary corrective
action in cases in which the disciplinary matrices call for the imposition
of discipline;
j. provide that the MCSO will consider whether non-disciplinary
corrective action also is appropriate in a case where discipline has been
imposed; and
k. require that any departures from the discipline recommended under the
disciplinary matrices be justified in writing.
228.230.

In cases involving more than one offense, the most serious offense shall establish the
Category of Offense pursuant to MCSO’s disciplinary matrices. Other offenses may
then be considered as aggravating circumstances. Each act or omission that results in a
sustained misconduct allegation may shall be treated as a separate offense for the
purposes of imposing discipline.

229.231.

The Appointing Authority Director of the Professional Standards Bureau shall make
preliminary determinations of the discipline to be imposed in all cases, other than those
handled at the District level, and shall document his or herall disciplinary decisions in
writing, including the presumptive range of discipline for the sustained misconduct
allegation, the employee’s disciplinary history, all mitigating and aggravating factors
considered, and all recommended non-disciplinary corrective action.
D.

230.232.

Pre-Determination Hearings

Where If the Appointing Authority Director of the Professional Standards Bureau
makes a preliminary determination that major discipline (defined as suspension,
demotion, or termination) should be imposed, a designated member of MCSO’s
command staff will conduct a pre-determination hearing and will provide the employee
with an opportunity to be heard.

231.233.

Pre-determination hearings will be audio and video recorded in their entirety, and the
recording shall be maintained with the administrative investigation file.

18

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 19 of 30

232.234.

If an employee provides new or additional evidence at a pre-determination hearing, the
hearing will be suspended and the matter will be returned to the misconduct
investigator Professional Standards Bureau for consideration or further investigation, as
necessary. If after any further investigation or consideration of the new or additional
evidence, there is no change in discipline, the matter will go back to the predetermination hearing. If, however, the new or additional evidence will result in a
change in discipline, tThe Professional Standards Bureau may shall initiate a separate
misconduct investigation if it appears that the employee intentionally withheld the new
or additional evidence during the initial misconduct investigation.

233.235.

If the Appointing Authority designated member of MCSO’s command staff changes
the preliminary findings of discipline as a result of conducting the pre-determination
hearing, does not uphold the charges recommended by the Professional Standards
Bureau in whole or in part, or does not impose the Professional Standards Bureau
CommanderDirector’s recommended discipline and/or non-disciplinary corrective
action, the designated member of the command staff the Appointing Authority will set
forth in writing thehis or her justification for doing so. This justification will be
appended to the investigation file.

234.236.

MCSO policy shall provide that the Appointing Authority a commander conducting a
pre-determination hearing should apply the disciplinary matrix and set forth clear
guidelines for the grounds on which a deviation is permitted. A commander may not
consider as grounds for mitigation or reducing the level of discipline prescribed by the
matrix:
a. his or her personal opinion about the employee’s reputation;
b. the employee’s past disciplinary history (or lack thereof), except as provided in
the disciplinary matrix;
c. whether other employees charged with similar conduct received lighter discipline
or whether others were jointly responsible for the misconduct.

235.237.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall initiate a misconduct investigation if the
designated member of MCSO’s command staff conducting the pre-determination
hearing changes disciplinary findings or recommended discipline in a way that appears
to violate MCSO policy.

19

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 20 of 30

E.
236.238.

Criminal Misconduct Investigations

Whenever an investigator or Commander finds evidence of misconduct during an
administrative misconduct investigation indicating apparent criminal conduct by an
employee, MCSO will continue to require the investigator or Commander shall to
immediately notify the Commander of Director of the Professional Standards Bureau. If
the administrative misconduct investigation is being conducted by a Supervisor outside
of the Professional Standards Bureau, the Professional Standards Bureau shall
immediately take over the administrative investigation.

237.239.

All allegations of criminal misconduct by MCSO employees shall be referred to
another law enforcement agency or a qualified outside investigator to conduct the
criminal investigation.

238.240.

If a misconduct allegation will be investigated criminally, the Professional Standards
Bureau will not compel an interview of the principal pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey,
385 U.S. 493 (1967) until it has first consulted with the criminal investigator. and the
relevant prosecuting authority. No other part of the administrative investigation shall be
held in abeyance unless specifically authorized by the Director of the Professional
Standards Bureau. in consultation with the entity conducting the criminal investigation.
The Professional Standards Bureau shall document in writing all decisions regarding
compelling an interview, all decisions to hold any aspect of an administrative
investigation in abeyance, and all consultations with the criminal investigator and
prosecuting authority.

239.241.

The Professional Standards Bureau will continue to ensure that criminal investigators
conducting a criminal investigation do not have access to any statements by the
principal that were compelled pursuant to Garrity v. New Jersey.

240.242.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to complete the administrative
investigation regardless of the outcome of any criminal investigation, including cases in
which the prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after
the initiation of criminal charges. The relevant provisions of MCSO policies and the
operations manual for the Professional Standards Bureau shall continue to remind
members of the Bureau that administrative and criminal cases are held to different
standards of proof, that the elements of a policy violation differ from those of a

20

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 21 of 30

criminal offense, and that the purposes of the administrative investigation process differ
from those of the criminal investigation process.
241.243.

MCSO shall continue to require that a decision must be documented in writing and
referred to the Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau if the
investigatorentity conducting the criminal investigation decides to close the
investigation without referring it to a prosecuting agency, this decision must be
documented in writing and provided to the Professional Standards Bureau. MCSO shall
continue to require that tThe Commander of the Professional Standards Bureau shall
separately consider whether to refer the matter to a prosecuting agency and shall
document theits decision in writing.

242.244.

If the entity Professional Standards Bureau investigator conducting the criminal
investigation decides to refer the matter to a prosecuting agency, the Professional
Standards Bureau shall review the information provided to the prosecuting agency to
ensure that it is of sufficient quality and completeness. The CommanderDirector of the
Professional Standards Bureau shall request the investigatorentity conducting the
criminal investigation to conduct additional investigation when it appears that there is
additional relevant evidence that may improve the reliability or credibility of the
investigation. Such requests shall be documented in writing and included in the
investigatory file.

243.245.

If the prosecuting agency declines to prosecute or dismisses the criminal case after the
initiation of criminal charges, the Professional Standards Bureau shall request an
explanation for this decision, which shall be documented in writing and appended to the
criminal investigation report.

244.246.

The Professional Standards Bureau shall maintain all criminal investigation reports and
files after they are completed for record-keeping, subject to MCSO’s document
retention policies.
F.

245.247.

Civilian Complaint Intake, Communication, and Tracking

Within six months of the entry of this Order, the Monitor, in consultation with the
Community Advisory Board, will develop and implement a program to promote
awareness throughout the Maricopa County community about the process for filing
complaints about the conduct of MCSO employees.

21

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 22 of 30

246.248.

The MCSO will continue to accept all civilian complaints, whether submitted verbally
or in writing; in person, by phone, or on line; by a complainant, someone acting on the
complainant’s behalf, or anonymously; and with or without a signature from the
complainant. MCSO will document all complaints in writing.

247.249.

The MCSO will continue to post and maintain at the reception desk at MCSO
headquarters and in locations at all District stations that are clearly visible to members
of the public permanent placards clearly and simply describing the civilian complaint
process. MCSO shall continue to haveThe placards shall that include relevant contact
information, including telephone numbers, email addresses, and Internet sites. The
placards shall be in both English and Spanish.

248.250.

The MCSO will require all deputies to carry complaint forms in their MCSO vehicles.
Deputies will provide complaint forms and information about how to file a complaint to
individuals upon request. Deputies will provide their name and badge number upon
request. If an individual indicates to a deputy that he or she would like to make a
complaint about that deputy, and time and circumstances permit, the deputy will
immediately inform his or her Supervisor and ask the Supervisor how long it would
take him or her to respond to the scene. The deputy will then inform the individual that
his or her Supervisor can respond to the scene to assist the individual in filing a
complaint, if the individual desires and is willing to wait for the Supervisor to arrive. If
the individual responds in the affirmative, and time and circumstances permit, the
Supervisor will respond to the scene, assist the individual to the extent assistance is
desired, and provide the individual a copy of the completed complaint form. Otherwise
the deputy will assist the individual to the extent assistance is desired and provide the
individual a copy of the completed complaint form.

249.251.

The MCSO will ensure that the Professional Standards Bureau facility is easily
accessible to members of the public. There shall be a space available for receiving
walk-in visitors and personnel who can assist the public with filing complaints and/or
answer questions about the complaint investigations process.

250.252.

The MCSO will also make complaint forms widely available at locations around the
County including: the websites of MCSO and Maricopa County government; the lobby
of MCSO’s headquarters; each patrol District; and the Maricopa County government

22

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 23 of 30

offices. The MCSO will ask locations such as public library branches and the offices
and gathering places of community groups to make these materials available.
251.253.

The MCSO will establish a free, 24-hour hotline for members of the public to make
complaints.

252.254.

The MCSO’s complaint form will not contain any language that could reasonably be
construed as discouraging the filing of a complaint, such as warnings about the
potential criminal consequences for filing false complaints.

253.255.

MCSO will continue to ensure that Within two months of the entry of this Order,
complaint forms will be made available, at a minimum, in English and Spanish. The
MCSO will make reasonable efforts to ensure that complainants who speak other
languages (including sign language) and have limited English proficiency can file
complaints in their preferred language. The fact that a complainant does not speak,
read, or write English, or is deaf or hard of hearing will not be grounds to decline to
accept or investigate a complaint.

254.256.

In the course of investigating a civilian complaint, the Professional Standards Bureau
will continue to provide send periodic written updates communication to the
complainant including as follows:

a. within seven days of receipt of a complaint, the Professional Standards
Bureau will send non-anonymous complainants a written notice of
receipt, including the tracking number assigned to the complaint. The
notice will inform the complainant how he or she may contact the
Professional Standards Bureau to inquire about the status of a
complaint;
b. when the Professional Standards Bureau concludes its investigation, the
Bureau will notify the complainant that the investigation has been
concluded and inform the complainant of the Bureau’s findings.; and
c. in cases where discipline is imposed, the Professional Standards Bureau
will notify the complainant of the discipline.
255.257.

Notwithstanding the above written noticescommunications, a complainant and/or
his/her representative may contact the Professional Standards Bureau at any time to

23

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 24 of 30

determine the status of his or her complaint, and MCSO will provide the status.
256.

The Professional Standards Bureau will track, as a separate category of complaints,
allegations of biased policing, including allegations that a deputy conducted an
investigatory stop or arrest based on an individual’s demographic category or used a
slur based on an individual’s actual or perceived race, ethnicity, nationality, or
immigration status, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The Professional
Standards Bureau will require that complaints of biased policing are captured and
tracked appropriately, even if the complainant does not so label the allegation.

257.

The Professional Standards Bureau will track, as a separate category of complaints,
allegations of unlawful investigatory stops, searches, seizures, or arrests.

258.

The Professional Standards Bureau will conduct an annualregular assessments of the
types of complaints being received to identify and assess potential problematic patterns
and trends.
G.

259.

Transparency Measures

The Professional Standards Bureau will produce a quarterly public report on
misconduct investigations, including, at a minimum, the following:
a. Summary information that does not name the specific employees involved about
any sustained allegations that an employee violated conflict-of-interest rules in
conducting or reviewing misconduct investigations;
b. aggregate data on complaints received from the public, broken down by district;
rank of principal(s); nature of contact (traffic stop, pedestrian stop, call for
service, etc.); nature of allegation (rudeness, bias-based policing, etc.);
complainants’ demographic information (age, gender, race, ethnicity, etc.);
complaints received from anonymous or third parties; and principals’
demographic information;
c. analysis of whether any increase or decrease in the number of civilian
complaints received from quarter to quarter is attributable to issues in the
complaint intake process or other factors;
d. aggregate data on internally-generated misconduct allegations, broken down by
similar categories as those for civilian complaints;
e. aggregate data on the processing of misconduct cases, including the number of

24

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 25 of 30

cases assigned to Supervisors outside the Professional Standards Bureau versus
investigators in the Professional Standards Bureau; the average and median time
from the initiation of an investigation to its submission by the investigator to his
or her chain of command; the average and median time from the submission of
the investigation by the investigator to a final decision regarding discipline, or
other final disposition if no discipline is imposed; the number of investigations
returned to the original investigator due to conclusions not being supported by
the evidence; and the number of investigations returned to the original
investigator to conduct additional investigation;
f. aggregate data on the outcomes of misconduct investigations, including the
number of sustained, not sustained, exonerated, and unfounded misconduct
complaints; the number of misconduct allegations supported by the appropriate
standard of proof; the number of sustained allegations resulting in a nondisciplinary outcome, coaching, written reprimand, suspension, demotion, and
termination; the number of cases in which findings were changed after a predetermination hearing, broken down by initial finding and final finding; the
number of cases in which discipline was changed after a pre-determination
hearing, broken down by initial discipline and final discipline; the number of
cases in which findings were overruled, sustained, or changed by the County
Merit Commission, broken down by the finding reached by the MCSO and the
finding reached by the Commission; and the number of cases in which
discipline was altered by the County Merit Commission, broken down by the
discipline imposed by the MCSO and the disciplinary ruling of the County
Merit Commission; and similar information on appeals beyond the County
Merit Commission; and
g. aggregate data on employees with persistent or serious misconduct problems,
including the number of employees who have been the subject of more than two
misconduct investigations in the previous 12 months, broken down by major
and minor misconduct; the number of investigations; the number of employees
who have had more than one sustained allegation of minor misconduct in the
previous 12 months, broken down by the number of sustained allegations; the

25

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 26 of 30

number of employees who have had more than one sustained allegation of
major misconduct in the previous 12 months, broken down by the number of
sustained allegations; and the number of criminal prosecutions of employees,
broken down by criminal charge.
260.

The MCSO shall make detailed summaries of completed internal affairs investigations
readily available to the public to the full extent permitted under state law, in electronic
form on a designated section of its website that is linked to directly from MCSO’s
home page with prominent language that clearly indicates to the public that the link
provides information about investigations of misconduct by MCSO employees.

261.

The MCSO Bureau of Internal Oversight shall produce a quarterly public audit report
regarding misconduct investigations. This report shall analyze a stratified random
sample of misconduct investigations that were completed during the previous quarter to
identify any procedural irregularities, including any instances in which:
a. complaint notification procedures were not followed;
b. a misconduct complaint was not assigned a unique identifier;
c. investigation assignment protocols were not followed, such as serious or
criminal misconduct being investigated outside of the Professional Standards
Bureau;
d. deadlines were not met;
e. an investigation was conducted by an employee who had not received required
misconduct investigation training;
f. an investigation was conducted by an employee with a history of multiple
sustained misconduct allegations, or one sustained allegation of a Category 6 or
Category 7 offense from MCSO’s disciplinary matrices;
g. an investigation was conducted by an employee who was named as a principal
or witness in any investigation of the underlying incident;
h. any interviews were not recorded;
i. the investigation report was not reviewed by the appropriate personnel;
j. employees were promoted or received a salary increase while named as a
principal in an ongoing misconduct investigation;
k. a final finding was not reached on a misconduct allegation;

26

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 27 of 30

l. an employee’s disciplinary history was not documented in a disciplinary
recommendation; or
m. no written explanation was provided for the imposition of discipline
inconsistent with the disciplinary matrix.
H.
262.

Testing Program for Civilian Complaint Intake

The MCSO shall initiate a testing program designed to assess civilian complaint
intake. Specifically, the testing program shall assess whether employees are providing
civilians appropriate and accurate information about the complaint process and whether
employees are notifying the Professional Standards Bureau upon the receipt of a
civilian complaint.

263.

The testing program is not intended to assess investigations of civilian complaints, and
the MCSO shall design the testing program in such a way that it does not waste
resources investigating fictitious complaints made by testers.

264.

The testing program shall assess complaint intake for complaints made in person at
MCSO facilities, complaints made telephonically, and complaints made electronically
by email or through MCSO’s website. Testers shall not interfere with deputies taking
law enforcement action. Testers shall not attempt to assess complaint intake in the
course of traffic stops or other law enforcement action being taken outside of MCSO
facilities.

265.

The testing program shall include sufficient random and targeted testing to assess the
complaint intake process, utilizing surreptitious video and/or audio recording, as
permitted by state law, of testers’ interactions with MCSO personnel to assess the
appropriateness of responses and information provided.

266.

The testing program shall also assess whether employees promptly notify the
Professional Standards Bureau of civilian complaints and provide accurate and
complete information to the Bureau.

267.

MCSO shall not permit current or former employees to serve as testers.

268.

The MCSO shall produce an annual report on the testing program. This report shall
include, at a minimum:
a. a description of the testing program, including the testing methodology and the number
of tests conducted broken down by type (i.e., in-person, telephonic, and electronic);

27

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 28 of 30

b. the number and proportion of tests in which employees responded inappropriately to a
tester;
c. the number and proportion of tests in which employees provided inaccurate information
about the complaint process to a tester;
d. the number and proportion of tests in which employees failed to promptly notify the
Professional Standards Bureau of the civilian complaint;
e. the number and proportion of tests in which employees failed to convey accurate
information about the complaint to the Professional Standards Bureau;
f. an evaluation of the civilian complaint intake based upon the results of the testing
program; and
g. a description of any steps to be taken to improve civilian complaint intake as a result of
the testing program.
XVI. COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
269.

The Community Advisory Board may conduct or retain a consultant to conduct a study
to identify barriers to the filing of civilian complaints against MCSO personnel.

270.

In addition to the administrative support provided for in [cite the amended order], the
Community Advisory Board (“CAB”) shall be provided with annual funding to support
its activities, including but not limited to funds for a study of the barriers to the filing of
civilian complaints, outreach advertising and website maintenance, stipends for intern
support, professional interpretation and translation, and out-of-pocket costs of the CAB
members for transportation related to their official responsibilities. The CAB shall
submit a proposed annual budget to the Monitor, not to exceed $15,000, and upon
approval of the annual budget the County shall deposit that amount into an account
established by the CAB for that purpose.

XVII. SUPERVISION AND STAFFING
271.

The following Section of this Order represent additions and amendments to Section X
of the first Supplemental Permanent Injunction, Supervision and Evaluations of Officer
Performance, and the provisions of this Section override any conflicting provisions in
Section X of the first Supplemental Permanent Injunction.

272.

All patrol deputies shall be assigned to a primary, clearly identified first-line
supervisor.

28

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 29 of 30

273.

First-line patrol supervisors shall be responsible for closely and consistently
supervising all deputies under their primary command.

274.

First-line patrol supervisors shall be assigned as primary supervisor to no more than
eight twelve patrol deputies. If the Monitor determines assignment complexity, the
geographic size of a district, the volume of calls for service, or other circumstances
warrant an increase in the level of supervision for any unit, squad, or shift, the Monitor
shall order such increases as necessary.

275.

Supervisors shall be responsible for close and effective supervision of deputies under
their command. Supervisors shall ensure that all deputies under their direct command
comply with MCSO policy, federal, state and local law, and this Court’s orders.

276.

Any transfer of sworn personnel or supervisors in or out of the Professional Standards
Bureau, the Bureau of Internal Oversight, and the Court Implementation Division shall
require advanced approval from the Court. Prior to any transfer into any of these
components, the MCSO shall provide the Court, Monitor, and parties with advance
notice of the transfer and shall produce copies of the individual’s resumé and
disciplinary history. The Court may order the removal of the heads of these components
if doing so is, in the Court’s view, necessary to achieve compliance in a timely manner.

XVIII.
277.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION AND PRODUCTION

MCSO shall continue to ensure that when it receives a document preservation notice
from a litigant, it shall promptly communicate that document preservation notice to all
personnel who might possibly have responsive documents.

278.

MCSO shall continue to ensure that when it receives a request for documents in the
course of litigation, it shall:
a. promptly communicate the document request to all personnel who might
possibly reasonably be in possession of responsive documents.
b. ensure that all existing electronic files, including email files and data stored on
networked drives are sequestered and preserved through a centralized process.
c. ensure that a reasonably thorough and adequate search for documents is
conducted, and that each employee who might possibly reasonably be in
possession of responsive documents conducts a thorough and adequate
reasonable search of all relevant physical and electronic files.

29

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1732-3 Filed 06/30/16 Page 30 of 30

279.

Within three months of the effective date of this order, the MCSO Compliance Division
shall promulgate detailed protocols for the preservation and production of documents
requested in litigation. Such protocols shall be subject to the approval of the Monitor
after a period of comment by the Parties.

280.

MCSO policy shall provide that all employees must comply with document
preservation and production requirements and that violatorsviolations of this policy
shall may be subject to disciplinary action.e and potentially other sanctions.

XIX. THE ROLE OF THE MONITOR2
281.

Section XIII of the Supplemental Permanent Injunction (Doc. 606) is amended to
enlarge the scope of the Monitor’s duties to include the authority to direct corrective
actions necessary to achieve compliance with any of this Court’s orders, where MCSO
has failed to comply with the Court’s deadline or is otherwise found not to be in
compliance with a court order. This authority shall include the following, where
necessary to achieve compliance with an order of this Court:
a. directing an MCSO employee to take specific corrective action
b. directing the issuance of administrative broadcasts, briefing boards, or policy revisions
c. assigning an MCSO employee to a division or bureau charged with tasks relating to
compliance with the Court’s orders
d. removing an MCSO employee from a division or bureau charged with tasks relating to
compliance with the Court’s orders
e. directing the procurement of equipment and the expenditure of resources, including the
use of money, personnel, and consultants, up to an annual limit of $250,000, which may
be exceeded only upon the order of this Court.

XX.
282.

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Within two months of the entry of this Order, the MCSO shall ensure that all
employees personnel affected by this order are briefed and presented the terms of the
Order, along with relevant background information about the Court’s Findings of Fact
of May 13, 2016, (Doc. 1677) upon which this Order is based.

                                                            
2

This section is proposed by Plaintiffs.

30