« 2015 | January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December | 2017 »
Note: June-December 2016 entries are contained in a separate post, here.
Melendres Parties | Grissom Matter | Misc Other
Arpaio-Zullo Cold Case Posse/Birther Investigation | Seattle Operation | Dennis Montgomery*
*For information on 2016 Dennis Montgomery litigation-related events that are unrelated to Melendres, see here.
January 2016
Jan. 4, 2016
Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Maricopa County files Errata to Opening Brief Excerpts of Record. No.15-15996 Doc 46.
Maricopa County files Reply Brief. No.15-15996 Doc 47 (Brief); Doc 48 (Supplemental Record Excerpts).
Jan. 5, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order denying Sands’ Aug. 6, 2015 Motion for Summary Judgement. ECF 1603.
Judge Snow issues an order granting Sands’ Dec. 10, 2015 motion for leave to “file a reply to Plaintiffs' response to his memorandum, not to exceed ten pages, to be filed within seven days of the date of this Order.” ECF 1602.
Arpaio/MCSO files Notice re: Filing Sixth Quarterly Compliance Report. ECF 1604.
Jan. 7, 2016
Zullo Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file Reply to Zullo’s Dec. 28, 2015 Response to the Ninth Circuit's Dec. 17 Order to Show Cause (re jurisdiction). No. 15-17629, Doc. 16.
Jan. 11, 2016
Arpaio files Notice re: Notice of Unavailability (of counsel). ECF 1605.
Jan. 12, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order: “The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated January 1, 2016 for services rendered by the Monitor in December 2015. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice in full, including any past due balance. ECF 1606 (Docket Text Entry).
Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit holds oral argument on Maricopa County's 2015 appeal. See here for a video recording of the oral argument (Ninth Circuit - YouTube). See also Matt Reynolds, “County Wants Out of Sheriff Arpaio Flap,” Courthouse News Service, Jan. 12, 2015.
The matter is submitted (J. Clifford Wallace, Susan P. Graber and Marsha S. Berzon. No.15-15996, Doc 52.
Jan. 13, 2016
Brian Sands submits his Reply in response to Plaintiffs' Dec. 4, 2015 Response to his Nov. 20 Memorandum. ECF 1608.
Jan. 20, 2016
Montgomery Appeals. Melendres Plaintiffs file Answering Brief in Montgomery's consolidated appeals. (9th Cir. Nos. 15-16440 & 15-16626). See Doc 32.
Jan. 29, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order unsealing four transcripts,* and setting forth multiple additional documents that may be unsealed – ordering that any party wishing to retain the seal should file supporting papers by Feb. 5, and setting a hearing for Feb. 8 to address any such arguments. ECF 1610.
*Unsealed docs include ECF 735 (Aug. 7, 2014 transcript); ECF 780 (Oct. 28, 2014 transcript); ECF 1021 (Apr. 22, 2016 hearing (portion previously sealed)); and ECF 1041 (Apr. 24, 2016 hearing (portion previously sealed)).
February 2016
Feb. 5, 2016
Plaintiffs file a Response to Judge Snow’s Jan. 29 order regarding sealed documents. ECF 1612.
Arpaio files Response to Judge Snow’s Jan. 29 order regarding sealed documents. ECF 1613. MCSO joins in this Response. ECF 1615.
Sands files Response to Judge Snow’s Jan. 29 order regarding sealed documents. ECF 1614.
Feb. 8, 2016
Judge Snow presides over the scheduled hearing – held under seal – regarding sealed documents. ECF 1616 (Minutes of Proceeding); ECF tbd (Transcript).
Feb. 9, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order addressing the sealed documents. In short,
- some documents remain under seal; a few documents remain under seal pending further argument; and some documents are unsealed (some to be first redacted by parties); and
- a hearing is set for March 1 for further argument regarding the documents and other matters.
See ECF 1617, amended by ECF 1620 (issued later today) and ECF 1623 (Feb. 17) for further details.
Judge Snow also issues an order finding the Court Monitor’s Feb. 1, 2016 invoice reasonable and ordering Maricopa County to authorize payment of the invoice (including past due balances). ECF 1618.
The Court Monitor files the Sixth Quarterly Report. ECF 1621. According to this report, MCSO is, as of Feb. 1, 2016, only 57% in compliance with Phase I and only 37% in compliance with Phase II of the Court Order. Id. at 8.
Feb. 17, 2016
Plaintiffs file a Motion for Clarification of Judge Snow’s Feb. 9 Order (ECF 1620) – regarding which ICE agent names must be redacted. ECF 1622.
Judge Snow issues an order granting Plaintiffs’ motion for clarification and amending his order accordingly. ECF 1623
Feb. 19, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order
- Inviting the parties to address a variety of issues set forth in the order;
- Admitting Exhibit 2943a (spreadsheet summarizing the status of Armendariz spin-off investigations as of 9/30/2015) into evidence
- Denying Plaintiffs’ Sept. 11, 2015 motion to seal certain exhibits as moot;
- Granting Maricopa County’s Nov. 16, 2015 motion for judicial notice of costs (as supplemented by its Dec. 4 reply);
- Denying Arpaio’s Nov. 17, 2015 motion re: Dennis Montgomery statements/exhibits
- Deferring ruling on MacIntyre’s Nov. 19, 2015 motion for determination that criminal contempt charges will not be pursued/referred against him;
- Ordering the MCSO to file investigative materials (specified in the order) by Feb. 26.
See ECF 1624.
Feb. 25, 2016
Arpaio files (in response to Judge Snow's Feb. 19 order):
- Sealed/Lodge Proposed Defendant's Information regarding Open Investigations. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. ECF 1625 (documents); ECF 1626 (notice of filing of docs under seal)
- Notice re: Documents Provided Pursuant to Court's Orders by Joseph M Arpaio. ECF1627.
Feb. 26, 2016
Plaintiffs file redacted version of ECF 449 (originally sealed Supplemental Statement of Facts, originally filed June 1, 2011). ECF 1629
Judge Snow issues order regarding Maricopa County’s Motion for Recognition of its Rights as a Party Litigant. ECF 1630.
Feb. 29. 2016
Arpaio files
- Redacted version of ECF 786 (originally sealed Proposed Defendants' October 24, 2014 Brief for In Camera Review Regarding Investigations, filed Nov. 17, 2014). ECF 1631.
- Redacted version of ECF 826 (originally sealed Exhibit 1 Pursuant to Court's Oct. 22 2015 Order (ECF 756) that Defendants file “in camera briefing in which Defendants fully and completely identify the names, case numbers and nature of the investigation for each of these additional investigations. In addition to this information, Defendants shall also identify for each such investigation”). ECF 1632.
- Redacted version of ECF 848 (formerly sealed Information Regarding Armendariz Investigations. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, filed Jan. 12, 2015). ECF 1633.
- Notice of Continued Objections. ECF 1634.
Sands files Response to Judge Snow’s Feb. 19 order. ECF 1635.
March 2016
Mar. 1, 2016
Judge Snow presides over the scheduled in-Court Hearing. This hearing includes an open hearing, a sealed hearing with parties and counsel, and an ex parte double-sealed hearing between the Court and Paul Ahler from the Arizona Attorney General's Office. See Minute Entry (ECF 1636 – text only entry); Transcript Volume 1 (ECF 1644); Transcript Volume 2 (ECF 1645) .
Judge Snow issues notice that the Court has provided documents to Paul Ahler from the Arizona Attorney General's Office “as discussed at the hearing this morning.” ECF 1637.
Mar. 3, 2016
Judge Snow presides over a sealed ex parte hearing between the Court and Paul Ahler from the Arizona Attorney General's Office (from 4:07 PM to 4:20 PM). See Minute Entry (ECF 1642); Transcript (tbd).
Mar. 4, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order unsealing Documents ECF 1335 and ECF 1456 and hearing exhibits 2015 and 2016. Per the order:
“[T]he Attorney General has requested that it be permitted to provide a redacted version of Document 1529 for the Court's docket; the Attorney General may provide such a document to the parties for comment by 3/11/16; if any party has any objection to the redacted version of Document 1529 it shall file such objection with the Court prior to 3/15/16.”
Notes:
- ECF 1335 contains the originally sealed Exhibits 8-11 and 13-16 of Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1(B) Statement of Facts and Rule 56(D) Statement of Unavailable Facts in Opposition to Sands' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Sept. 11, 2015.
- ECF 1456 contains the originally sealed portion of the Oct. 1, 2015 hearing.
- ECF 1529 contains the originally sealed “Response to Inquiry of Arizona Attorney General” filed Nov. 9, 2015.
Mar. 7, 2016
Brian Sands files Supplement to “Response to the Early Retirement Question Posed by the Court at the March 1, 2016 Hearing,” ECF 1647.
The Arizona Attorney General files:
- Motion to Seal Document. ECF 1648.
- Sealed Lodged Proposed Documents filed under Seal. ECF 1649.
Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit dismisses Maricopa County's appeal. (No. 15-1996 Doc. 55).
Mar. 8, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order directing Maricopa County to authorize payment of the court monitors’ Mar. 1, 2016 invoice. ECF 1650.
Mar. 14, 2016
Arpaio files Notice re: Filing Seventh Quarterly Compliance Report (with report attached). ECF 1651.
Maricopa County files Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Feb. 26 Order (1630) on its Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. ECF 1652.
Mar. 15, 2016
Plaintiffs file Notice of Intention and Request to File Opposition to Maricopa County’s Mar. 14 Motion for Reconsideration. ECF 1654.
Mar. 16, 2016
Judge Snow issues order
- directing Clerk of Court to file the lodged redacted version of the Arizona Attorney General’s Mar. 7 submission (re: pending investigations);
- denying, as moot, the Arizona Attorney General’s Mar. 7 motion to seal document.
The Arizona Attorney General’s redacted Response (re: pending investigations) is docketed. ECF 1656.
Judge Snow also issues an order granting Plaintiffs’ Mar. 15 request to file opposition to Maricopa County’s Mar. 14 Motion for Reconsideration; opposition must be filed by Mar. 23, 2016. ECF 1657.
Mar. 23, 2016
Plaintiffs file Opposition to Maricopa County’s Mar. 14 Motion for Reconsideration. ECF 1658.
Mar. 25, 2016
Maricopa County files Notice of Intent and Request to file Reply to Plaintiff’s Mar. 23 opposition. ECF 1659.
Mar. 30, 2016
Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. The Ninth Circuit issues its mandate dismissing Appeal No. 15-159996. ECF 1661.
Arpaio files
- Notice of Lodging Under Seal Information Regarding Investigations. ECF 1663.
- Sealed, Lodged Proposed Information Regarding Open Investigations. ECF 1662.
April 2016
Apr. 1, 2016
Arpaio files Notice re: Information Regarding Investigations. ECF 1664.
Apr. 4, 2016
Maricopa County 2015 Appeal. Melendres Plaintiffs file motion to recover $124,533.65 in attorney fees and costs. (No. 15-15996, Doc. 57.)
Apr. 6, 2016
Arpaio files Response to Court's In-Court Question. ECF 1665.
Apr. 11, 2016
Judge Snow issues order that Monitor’s April 1 Invoice is reasonable and directing “Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice in full, including any past due balance.” ECF 1666.
Apr. 19, 2016
The Melendres Court Monitor files Seventh Report (Fourth Quarter 2015). This report includes, as attachments, Comments from Plaintiffs and the USDOJ. ECF 1667.
Apr. 28, 2016
Judge Snow issues an order (as amended):
“The Court has been informed that the Arizona Attorney General's Office has requested certain interviews from the Monitor. If any party would like to know which interviews may be part of the request they are directed to contact the Monitor directly. IT IS ORDERED that if any party has an objection they shall file it within seven (7) days of the date of this Order,”
ECF 1672 (Amended Order).
Apr. 29, 2016
Arpaio files
- Notice re: Information Regarding Investigations. ECF 1673.
- Notice re: Lodging Under Seal Information regarding Investigations. ECF 1675.
- Sealed Lodged Proposed Information regarding Open Armendariz Investigations. ECF 1674.
May 2016
May 9, 2016
Judge Snow issues order that Monitor’s May 1 Invoice is reasonable and directing “Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice in full, including any past due balance.” ECF 1676.
May 13, 2016
Judge Snow issues a 162-page FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER SETTING A HEARING. ECF 1677. In summary, Judge Snow finds as follows:
- Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan, Chief Sands, and Lieutenant Sousa are in civil contempt on Count One of the Order to Show Cause (violation of preliminary injunction). (ECF 1677 at 3-33.)
- Sheriff Arpaio is in civil contempt on Count Two of the Order to Show Cause (pre-trial discovery violations).
- Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan are in civil contempt on Count Three of the Order to Show Cause (Failure to Cooperate with May 14, 2014 Oral Orders).
For an excellent summary of the Findings of Fact, see Jude Joffe-Block, “10 Key Findings From The Civil Contempt Ruling Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” KJZZ, May 20, 2016. See also, e.g., Stephen Lemons, “Joe Arpaio Guilty on Three Counts of Civil Contempt, Criminal Contempt Still Possible,” Phoenix New Times, May 13, 2016; Megan Cassidy, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio in contempt of federal court, judge rules,” Arizona Republic, May 16, 2015.
Judge Snow also orders (a) a May 31, 2016 hearing on potential remedies in light of the civil contempt findings; and (b) parties may file briefs by May 27. Per the order, Judge Snow plans to “shortly thereafter enter any applicable orders and determine if it will refer any matters for criminal contempt.”
More specifically ....
CIVIL CONTEMPT
With respect to the civil contempt order to show cause: Judge Snow finds as follows:
Count 1 - Violation of Preliminary Injunction.
- Sheriff Arpaio "knowingly and intentionally failed to implement the preliminary injunction." ECF 1677 at 5. Arpaio "knowingly and intentionally ensured that the MCSO did not comply with the preliminary injunction." Id. at 16. (Arpaio has already conceded that he is liable for civil contempt on this count. Id. at 5.)
- Chief Deputy Sheridan "knowingly and intentionally failed to implement the preliminary injunction." Id. at 16. Sheridan "was fully apprised of the terms of the preliminary injunction and fully informed of Sheriff’s Arpaio’s decision to ignore it. He was responsible for implementing its terms, and he did nothing to do so." Id. at 20. (Sheridan has already conceded that he is liable for civil contempt on this count. Id. at 16.)
- Chief Sands "is liable for civil contempt for knowingly and intentionally failing to comply with the preliminary injunction." Id. at 20-21. "It may be that Chief Sands felt pressure or was ordered to benefit Sheriff Arpaio and his 2012 electoral chances by not implementing the terms of the preliminary injunction. In any case, however, he misled at least counsel for Arpaio, if not his own subordinates, about the actual nature and effect of the injunction on the MCSO’s operations. As such, he was aware of the Court’s order and did not take reasonable steps to implement it." Id. at 25.
- Lieutenant Sousa "is liable for civil contempt for failing to take reasonable steps to implement the preliminary injunction." Id. at 25. Sousa "was aware of the preliminary injunction and its terms, and he was the commanding officer of the HSU, yet he did not take reasonable steps to implement the preliminary injunction within the HSU, he did not set forth the nature of the HSU’s procedures to his attorney in order to determine whether they required adjustment, and he did not take action to understand the injunction’s true scope." Id. at 31.
- Chief MacIntyre is not liable for civil contempt. Id. at 31. “With the possible exception of Sheriff Arpaio, Chief MacIntyre was as aware as anyone that Arpaio and the MCSO were in constant violation of the preliminary injunction during its pendency. But there seems to be no dispute that Chief MacIntyre had no command authority by which he could implement the orders in Melendres with the MCSO patrols. Thus there is an insufficient basis on which to find that Chief MacIntyre had sufficient personal responsibility for implementing the preliminary injunction. He is therefore not liable for civil contempt for failing to take reasonable steps to implement it.” Id. at 32 (internal numbering and citations omitted.) Id.
Count 2 - Pre-Trial Discovery Violations:
- Arpaio is civil contempt on Count Two of the Order to Show Cause. Id. at 162. (Arpaio has already "admitted that he is in civil contempt for the MCSO’s failure to provide recordings, documents, and other tangible items that were requested by Plaintiffs prior to the underlying trial in this matter." Id. at 33.)
- The MCSO failed to produce recordings of traffic Stops. (Id. at 37-46.) In this regard, the MCSO MSCO Violated the Court’s May 14, 2014 order to quietly gather recordings responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests (id. at 40-43) and the MSCO destroyed many responsive recordings (id. at 43-46).
- The MSCO failed to produce documents. (id. at 46-48).
- The MCSO failed produce personal property seized from members of the Plaintiff class. (id. at 48-65). In this regard, the MCSO attempted to conceal the 1459 Knapp IDs from the Court (id. at 52-62) and Sheriff Arpaio knowingly attempted to conceal 50 hard drives of Montgomery information (id. at 62-65).
- The MCSO’s discovery violations were in bad faith. Id. at 65-71. In this regard, the Seattle Operation “demonstrates Sheriff Arpaio’s many intentional misstatements under oath and his attitude of hostility toward the Court’s orders” (id. at 66-70) and Chief Deputy Sheridan “knowingly made misstatements of fact under oath about the [Seattle Operation].” (id. at 70-71.)
Count 3 - Failure to Cooperate with May 14, 2014 Oral Orders (regarding quiet collection of recordings):
- Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan are in civil contempt on Count Three of the Order to Show Cause. Id. at 43, 162. (Both have previously admitted this. Id. at 43.)
- Sheridan's telephone statement to the Monitor that Trombi had sent out the email re: recording collection without his knowledge was an intentionally false statement. Id. at 42.
- Sheridan's follow-up letter to the Monitor later that evening was also intentionally untruthful. Id.
- Arpaio did not discipline Sheridan and later assigned an investigation into the matter to Sheridan's subordinate, Chief Olsen. Id. at 43.
- "Arpaio admits he was part of the decision to have Chief Trombi send out the email and he did not object to Chief Deputy Sheridan giving the instruction." Id.
THE MCSO'S FAILURES TO CONDUCT ADEQUATE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS.
Judge Snow's Findings of Fact also address the extensive evidence introduced during the hearings regarding the MCSO's inaequate (at best) internal investigations. ECF 1677 at 71-154. In this regard, Judge Snow finds as follows:
The MCSO’s investigations arising from video review were fundamentally flawed.
-
The MCSO did not appropriately assist Special Investigator Vogel’s investigation into the MCSO command staff’s failure to implement preliminary injunction (IA #2014-543) Id. at 76-86.
The principals in this investigation were Sheridan, Trombi, Sousa, Jakowinicz, and Trowbridge. Among other flaws …
The MCSO did not provide documents Vogel requested in a timely manner, such that he did not have directly relevant materials when he interviewed certain principles. Id. at 76-77;
Arpaio instructed Sheridan to designate Chief Olson to make MCSO findings as to violations and to determine discipline (even though Sheridan was a principal in the investigation – and Olson’s boss.) Id. at 75-76.
Olson preliminarily sustained allegations of misconduct re: Sheridan, Trombi, and Sousa based on Vogel’s factual findings – but then reversed his findings – with no or inadequate explanation. Id. at 78-84.
Olson did not even preliminary sustain allegations of misconduct against Jakowinicz – based on inaccurate information (id. at 84); nor did he preliminary sustain allegations of misconduct against Trowbridge – even though Trowbridge admitted to conduct that violated MCSO policy (id. at 85).
In short, “The assignment of Chief Olson to make the disciplinary decision in IA #2014-543 in light of his partiality, his failure to acceptably perform that function, and his dismissal of all of the charges without individually considering them, constitutes unacceptable internal affairs practices. These practices both violate and threaten continued violations of the rights of the Plaintiff class that this Court’s orders have sought to vindicate.” As such, “IA #2014-543 is invalid.” Id. at 86.
- The MCSO improperly investigated the supervisory failures with respect to Deputy Armendariz (IA #2014-542). Id. at 86-99.
Vogel also served as factual investigator in this process. The principals in this investigation were Trombi, Sousa, Jakowinicz, and Trowbridge. Among other problems …
“Chief Olson’s decision, coupled with Chief Rodriguez’s grievance decision, resulted, with a single exception, in the imposition of no discipline on anyone at the MCSO for their serious, repeated, and significant supervisory failures with respect to Deputy Armendariz. The one exception was the week-long suspension for Chief Trombi coupled with a promotion and a raise.” Id. at 99.
“In both dismissing and minimizing discipline, Chief Olson miscategorized offenses and grouped separate acts of misconduct into a single act for purposes of determining discipline. He also engaged in bias and favoritism.” Id.
“The assignment of Chief Olson to make the disciplinary decision in IA #2014-542, his performance of that function, and the MCSO’s Melendres-only policy,* all constitute unacceptable internal affairs practices.” Id.
*The Melendres-only Discipline Policy.
Arpaio promulgated a special MCSO policy, relating to discipline imposed in investigations arising from the Melendres case. “According to this Melendres-only policy, investigators were not to apply the MCSO disciplinary matrix. In all such investigations, multiple independent violations of MCSO policies counted as only one violation for purposes of applying the disciplinary matrix.” Id. at 89. “As a result of this special policy, the MCSO generally treated misconduct that harmed members of the Plaintiff class less seriously than the uniform level of discipline that MCSO policy otherwise requires.” Id. at 89-90. “This discriminatory policy violates the MCSO policy that requires fairness, equity and uniformity in discipline in all such investigations.” Id. at 90. “The MCSO offered no adequate rational reason at the hearing, and the Court cannot devise any, to treat independent violations of the MCSO’s policies as a single act of misconduct.” Id.
- "The MCSO manipulated the timing of the four major investigations." Id. at 99. More specifically,
Disciplinary decisions were not completed in timely manner in a single one of the four major Melendres-related IA investigations (IA ##2014-221, -541, -542, and -543). Id. at 100. This is significant because
Both state law and MCSO policy require MCSO to make a good faith effort to complete an internal investigation within a specified time period and MSCO policy provides that the appeals board may dismiss discipline if it determines the investigation wasn’t completed in a timely manner. Id. at 99.
Testimony indicated that “Sheridan has manipulated the timing on investigations so he has a self-created justification for imposing no discipline, or only minor discipline.” Id. at 100.
There were unexplained time gaps in processing the cases and “[t]hese unexplained gaps,. Such gaps, “when the MCSO is always very cognizant of the timing, demonstrate the MCSO’s manipulation of these investigations to provide the principals with multiple defenses.” Id. at 101.
- "Other PSB investigations that resulted from video review were problematic." Id. at 101-02.
- "Investigations handled by divisions demonstrate a lack of training and consistency." Id. at 102-04.
MCSO investigations arising from found personal property were also fundamentally flawed.
- "The MCSO carried out a bad faith criminal investigation into the allegations raised by Cisco Perez (IA #2014-295)." Id. at 104-22.
The MCSO improperly bifurcated the Cisco Perez Allegations and the Armendariz search (id. at 104-05) and Sergeant Tennyson’s investigative practices and techniques undermine the veracity of his investigations and reports (id. at 105-22).
“In short, Sergeant Tennyson’s investigation ended up being what he and Chief Deputy Sheridan intended it to be: a perfunctory whitewash. His leading questions further propagated a fiction invented by HSU officers in an attempt to explain the unauthorized personal property in their possession, and he failed to adequately investigate the allegation that HSU officers other than Deputy Armendariz contributed to the items of personal property found at his home. Tennyson’s failure to fairly investigate the pervasive seizure of these items of personal property in the criminal investigation also resulted in the MCSO not fairly addressing them in the following administrative investigation.
“As a result, although the property in Deputy Armendariz’s garage was not taken into consideration when determining the outcome of the criminal investigation into the Cisco Perez allegations, that outcome was used to determine that no ‘further’ criminal investigation into the property found in the Armendariz garage was necessary. Due to this sleight-of-hand circumvention, the PSB never conducted a criminal investigation to attempt to determine the source of the drugs, currency, weapons, credit cards, bank cards, or other property in Armendariz’s home.
The Court finds that Defendants engaged in a cursory and bad faith investigation, and therefore IA #2014-295 is void.” Id. at 121-22 (italics in original).
-
"The MCSO’s administrative investigation into the Cisco Perez allegations (IA #2015-541) ignores admitted wrongdoing and is void." Id. at 122-26.
- Re: the Armendariz-related investigations (id. at 126-29),
"Except for a few items, the MCSO lumped all of the property found in Deputy Armendariz’s garage into a single 'umbrella' investigation that designated (deceased) deputy Armendariz as the principal." Id. at 126.
"Defendants manipulated the closure of the investigation to cover its deficiencies and avoid accountability for it in the evidentiary hearing." Id. at 128.
- “The MCSO’s other administrative investigations into personal property found elsewhere resulted in minor discipline, if any.” Id. at 129-35.
“Although IA #2015-018 resulted in minor discipline, the MCSO’s Melendres-only discipline policy clouded the basis of that discipline and ensured that only minimal discipline would be imposed; the investigation is invalid.” Id. at 130-32.
“The MCSO improperly investigated IA #2014-021.” id. at 132-33.
“The MCSO misled the Court as to the grievance relief granted in IA #2015-022.” Id. at 133-35.
- “Personal property attributable to the Plaintiff class in the possession of the MCSO continues to come to light.” Id. at 135.
“The MCSO Executed a Fundamentally Flawed Investigation Into the Allegations Raised by Maryann McKessy Regarding Detective Mackiewicz.”
-
“Ms. McKessy raised multiple allegations, both civil and criminal in nature, with the MCSO regarding Detective Mackiewicz.” Id. at 135.
-
“In addition to ignoring his own conflicts of interest, Chief Deputy Sheridan designated the investigation of Ms. McKessy’s allegations as criminal and assigned it to Sergeant Tennyson, who is supervised by Captain Bailey—both of whom are friends of Detective Mackiewicz.” Id. at 135-37.
-
“Sergeant Tennyson and detective zebro subverted the investigation.” Id. at 137-xxx. In this regard (a) “Sergeant Tennyson Failed to Investigate or Follow Up on Any of Ms. McKessy’s Allegations.” Id. at 137-38; and (b) “Captain Bailey, Sergeant Tennyson, and Detective Zebro Obstructed the Investigation by Divulging Ms. McKessy’s Allegations to Detective Mackiewicz.” Id. at 138-41.
-
Lieutenant Seagraves was removed from the case after finding the investigation into Ms. McKessy’s allegations deficient. Id. at 141-43.
-
“Chief Deputy Sheridan ensured that Detective Mackiewicz received no discipline.” Id. at 143-44.
-
“Conflicts, untruthfulness, manipulation, and malfeasance pervade the MCSO’s Investigation of Ms. McKessy’s allegations.” Id. at 144-46.
“Structural Inadequacies Pervade the MCSO’s Internal Investigations.”
- “The MCSO did not provide adequate training on how to conduct an internal investigation.” Id. at 146-48.
-
“The MCSO did not adequately train its leaders on how to supervise subordinates.” Id. at 148-50.
-
“The MCSO’s complaint-intake process is inadequate.” Id. at 150-53.
-
“The MCSO’s IA policies fail to address numerous issues that arose in this case.” Id. at 153-54.
May 17, 2016
Arpaio attorney Andrew MacDonald files notice that he will be unavailable from June 10-20 and "requests that any hearing on issues relating to criminal contempt not be set during these dates." ECF 1678.
Judge Snow issues order stating that no objections were filed per his Apr. 28 order and, as such, the Court "Montitor is authorized to release the requested interviews to the Attorney General’s Office." ECF 1679.
May 18, 2016
Arpaio files motion to delay the briefing and May 31 hearing. ECF 1680.
Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files a "renewed" emergency motion to expedite his Ninth Circuit appeal. No. 15-16626, Doc. 40, 41.
May 19, 2016
Plaintiffs file opposition to Arpaio's motion to delay briefing and hearing. ECF 1681.
Judge Snow issues order denying Arpaio's May 18 motion to delay briefing and hearing. ECF 1682.
Montgomery Appeals. Melendres Plaintiffs file opposition to Montgomery's renewed motion to expedite his appeal. No. 15-16626, Doc. 42.
May 23, 2016
Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues order that Montgomery's opposed motion to expedite is denied. No. 15-16626 Doc 43.
May 24, 2016
Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files motion for reconsideration on denial of motion to expedite. No. 15-16626 Doc 44.
The Ninth Circuit issues an order stating that yesterday's order "was issued in error and is vacated. The reply in support of the emergency motion has been filed. The motions shall be addressed in a separate order. Briefing is complete in these consolidated cases." No. 15-16626 Doc 45.
May 27, 2016
The parties file their memoranda regarding remedies for criminal contempt per Judge Snow’s May 13 order:
- US DOJ Memorandum – ECF 1685
For news reports summarizing the filings, see, e.g.,
- Stephen Lemons, “ACLU Says Charge Arpaio Criminally, Fine Him $300,000,” Phoenix New Times, May 27, 2016;
- Jude Joffe-Block, “Sheriff Joe Arpaio Agrees To Cede Some Authority After Contempt Finding,” KJZZ, May 27, 2016;
- Megan Cassidy, “Plaintiffs Seek Criminal Charges Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio In Tuesday Hearing,” Arizona Republic, May 31, 2016.
Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues an order as follows:
"The motion to expedite consideration of these consolidated appeals (Docket Entry No. 43) is granted. These appeals shall be placed on the next available calendar.
All other requests for relief contained in appellant’s renewed requests to expedite consideration of these consolidated appeals (Docket Entry Nos. 43, 44, 47) are denied.
Briefing is complete."
No. 15-16626, Doc 46.
May 30, 2016
Arpaio files
- Notice re: Lodging Under Seal Information regarding Investigations. ECF 1691.
- Sealed Lodged Proposed Information regarding Investigations. ECF 1690.
Montgomery Appeals. Montgomery files "Appellant’s Supplemental Authority to Appellant’s Expedited Appeal," which attaches the May 27 briefs filed by the Melendres Plaintiffs and the US DOJ, as well as a Stephen Lemons article about the filings. No. 15-16626, Doc 47.
May 31, 2016
Judge Snow presides over the scheduled hearing. Minutes of Proceeding - ECF 1694 (text entry); Transcript – ECF xxx (tbd). For news reports summarizing the proceedings, see, e.g.,
- Stephen Lemons, “Judge Snow: Arpaio Committed Perjury, Criminal Referral to Come,” Phoenix New Times, June 1, 2016;
- Jude Joffe-Block, “Judge Weighs Remedies For Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Contempt,” KJZZ, May 31, 2016.
- Megan Cassidy, “Judge: No Ruling Yet on Criminal Charges for Arpaio,” Arizona Republic, May 31, 2016.
- Megan Cassidy & Michael Kiefer,“Plaintiffs Seek Criminal Charges Against Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Tuesday Hearing,” Arizona Republic, June 3, 2016.
- Joe Dana, “Federal Judge Delays Decision on Criminal Contempt Charges for Arpaio,” KPNX/12News, May 31, 2016.
- Rebekah Kearn, “ACLU Wants Criminal Probe of Sheriff Arpaio,” Courthouse News Service, June 1, 2016.
Montgomery Appeals. The Ninth Circuit issues notice that "This case is being considered for the September 2016 San Francisco oral argument calendar." No. 15-1996, Doc 48.
June 2016
Due to the length of this post, events from June forward will appear in a new post - here.
| « 2015 |
Last updated July 22, 2016
| Be notified of page updates |
Comments