You are on page 1of 4

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1941 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 4

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
9 behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al. ORDER
12 and

13 United States of America,

14 Plaintiff-Intervenor,

15 v.
16 Paul Penzone, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et al.
19 Pending before this Court are the Sheriffs Objections re: Monitors Class
20 Remedial Matter Designations, (Docs. 1860, 1937). While the Court does not presently
21 rule on these objections, it notes that a scheduling status conference has been set for
22 March 2, 2017, at which it intends to address the objections with the parties. To assist the
23 parties in their preparation for this issue, the Court notes the following:
24 Paragraph 162(i) defines class remedial matters as possible misconduct involving
25 members of the Plaintiff class and the MCSO or the remedies to which such class
26 members are entitled as set forth in the Findings of Fact and various supplemental orders
27 of this Court. (Doc. 1765 at 18.) To the extent that the Sheriff attempts to assert that
28 members of the Plaintiff class in Doc. 1765 means the same thing as the named
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1941 Filed 02/03/17 Page 2 of 4

1 Plaintiffs in the caption to these proceedings, (see Doc. 1860 at 3), the Court rejects such
2 an interpretation as running contrary to the plain terms of the definition of class remedial
3 matters.
4 Further, the class is defined as All Latino persons who, since January 2007, have
5 been or will be in the future, stopped, detained, questioned or searched by MCSO agents
6 while driving or sitting in a vehicle on a public roadway or parking area in Maricopa
7 County, Arizona. (Doc. 494 at 37.) To the extent that the Sheriff argues that as a result
8 of that class definition remedial action is limited only to MCSOs actions that proceed or
9 occur during a traffic stop, the Court has already rejected such an argument and continues
10 to do so.
11 Additionally, the hearings conducted in April, September, October and November
12 2015 related not only to the civil contempt of Sheriff Arpaio and some of his command
13 staff and officers, but also to the remedial action to which the Plaintiff class was entitled
14 in light of Sheriff Arpaios failure to provide the class members the necessary discovery
15 they sought prior to the initial trial of this matter that would have revealed pervasive
16 misconduct within the MCSO related to members of the Plaintiff class. Because Sheriff
17 Arpaio insisted on the MCSO investigating and disciplining the pre-trial misconduct that
18 was revealed post trial under the Courts oversight, the hearing also addressed the
19 adequacy of the investigation and internal discipline implemented by Sheriff Arpaio.
20 That hearing demonstrated that Sheriff Arpaios PSB division, which conducted grossly
21 inadequate investigations and disciplinary processes is responsible for internal
22 investigations in both the patrol and detention side of MCSOs operations. The hearing
23 also demonstrated that Sheriff Arpaio used his top-level staff from the detention side of
24 the MCSO to make disciplinary decisions regarding the command staff and officers in
25 both patrol operations and the overall operations of the MCSO. As has been reviewed in
26 detail, those PSB investigations and the resulting disciplinary decisions were seriously
27 flawed. Thus, to the extent that the Sheriff argues that the hearings did not reveal the
28 internal disciplinary practices of the detention side of MCSO as it relates to alleged

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1941 Filed 02/03/17 Page 3 of 4

1 deprivations by MCSO personnel of the interests of the Plaintiff class, that argument is
2 not well-founded.
3 In light of the MCSOs own decision to merge the investigation and discipline of
4 detention and patrol operations (which may in the abstract be quite reasonable), this
5 Court entered remedial relief that was explicitly designed to cure investigative and
6 disciplinary deficiencies that existed as it pertained to MCSO operations as a whole as it
7 pertained to members of the Plaintiff class. Thus class remedial matters were defined as
8 possible misconduct involving members of the Plaintiff class and the MCSO without
9 limitation as to the various operations of the MCSO.
10 The Court acknowledges that since the Sheriffs office filed his first objection, the
11 people of Maricopa County have elected Sheriff Penzone as their Sheriff. Sheriff
12 Penzone is entitled to the presumption from this Court that he operates in good faith. As
13 a result, this Court presumes that new command personnel within the Sheriffs office may
14 be diligently working to solve these problems. However, in light of the long-standing
15 deprivations of the rights of members of the Plaintiff class demonstrated at the hearing,
16 and the direction provided by past (and perhaps to some extent continuing) MCSO
17 command staff to existing MCSO personnel, this Court will enforce its present orders
18 until it has adequate assurances that the problems that gave rise to those orders have been
19 permanently resolved, and that MCSO personnel are consistently operating in an
20 appropriate fashion.
21 The Court recognizes that Sheriff Penzone may wish to structure his department
22 differently than Sheriff Arpaio has done. To the extent he wishes to do so in a way that
23 would violate this Courts existing orders, the Court is willing to make such changes in
24 its orders as are necessary, so long as those changes either do not alter existing
25 protections for members of the Plaintiff class or that the proposed changes provide
26 equivalent protections for class members until such protections have been demonstrated
27 to be unnecessary.
28 ///

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1941 Filed 02/03/17 Page 4 of 4

1 Further, the Court takes the Sheriffs point that this Court should be cautious that
2 it does not unduly expand its authority over MCSO operations that are unrelated to the
3 present proceedings. To that end, with respect to each potential action of misconduct
4 being investigated under the Monitors ultimate authority which the Sheriff appeals, the
5 Court requests all parties be prepared to demonstrate at hearing whether the challenged
6 investigation involves alleged misconduct between the MCSO and a member or members
7 of the Plaintiff class. The Sheriffs past objections have not directly addressed this
8 question. Other parties wishing to be heard on this question shall be heard. The parties
9 need not repeat the arguments they have already otherwise made.
11 Dated this 3rd day of February, 2017.
13 Honorable G. Murray Snow
14 United States District Judge