Melendres # 1017 - 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3
4
5
Manuel de Jesus Ortega

Melendres, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
6
7
8
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
April 21, 2015
9 o'clock a.m.
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
11
12
TH
E
13
14
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
OF
15
17
(Evidentiary Hearing)
18
21
22
Court Reporter:
FR
23
IE
20
ND
19
24
25
Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

Transcript prepared by computer-aided transcription
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg
A P P E A R A N C E S
GB
OW
.C
OM
2
For the Plaintiffs:
Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Immigrants' Rights Project
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
(415) 343-0775
4
5
6
7
Stanley Young, Esq.

COVINGTON & BURLING, L.L.P.
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
(650) 632-4700
8
9
Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

Joshua D. Bendor, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
FOUNDATION OF ARIZONA
3707 N. 7th St., Suite 235
(602) 650-1854
FO
10
11
12
TH
E
13
14
15
OF
16
17
For the Defendant Arpaio:
18
21
22
FR
23
IE
20
ND
19
24
25
Andre I. Segura, Esq.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
Immigrants' Rights Project
125 Broad Street, 17th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212) 549-2676
Thomas P. Liddy
Senior Litigation Counsel
Douglas A. Schwab
MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Civil Services Division
222 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100
(602) 506-8066
A. Melvin McDonald, Esq.
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
(602) 263-1700
2
3
For the Defendants:
Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES
649 N. 2nd Avenue
(602) 234-9775
4
5
6
For the Defendant Maricopa County:
Richard K. Walker, Esq.

WALKER & PESKIND, P.L.L.C.
16100 N. 71st Street
Suite 140
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
(480) 483-6336
8
9
12
13
14
15
FO
11
For Chief Deputy Sheridan: Lee D. Stein, Esq.

MITCHELL STEIN CAREY
One Renaissance Square
2 North Central Avenue
Suite 1900
(602) 358-0290
TH
E
10
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:
OF
16
17
18
22
FR
23
24
25
Greg S. Como, Esq.

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& SMITH, L.L.P.
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2761
(602) 385-1040
For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.

DICKINSON WRIGHT, P.L.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
(602) 285-5000
IE
21
ND
19
20
GB
OW
.C
OM
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:
David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.
2702 N. 3rd Street
Suite 4003
(602) 237-5076
5
6
7
8
For Sergeant Brett Palmer:
Christopher T. Rapp, Esq.

RYAN, RAPP & UNDERWOOD, P.L.C.
3200 N. Central Avenue
Suite 1600
(602) 280-1000
ALSO PRESENT:
Chief Robert Warshaw

Deputy Chief John Girvin
Deputy Chief Raul Martinez
FO
10
11
12
TH
E
13
14
15
OF
16
17
18
22
FR
23
IE
21
ND
19
20
24
25
GB
OW
.C
OM
I N D E X
Witness:
DAVID TROMBI
Direct Examination by Mr. Pochoda

Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda
Examination by the Court
Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Pochoda
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
BRETT PALMER
Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Cross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
Cross-Examination by Mr. Como
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang
Examination by the Court
Recross-Examination by Ms. Iafrate
11
12
13
14
FO
10
BRIAN SANDS
TH
E
Page
Direct Examination by Mr. Young
16
20
21
22
E-mail to 27 recipients from Chief Trombi re

"Past Video Recordings" dated 5/14/2014
67
38
24
25
155
216
232
245
251
253
254
Admitted
59
Dkt 494 Preliminary Injunction Order dated

12/23/2011
260
100
Dkt 881, Order dated 2/12/2015
198
103
The Briefing Board, Number 13-40 dated

5/28/2013 (Melendres Compliance 000070)
182
FR
23
Description
ND
19
47
93
130
137
140
149
152
E X H I B I T S
No.
IE
18
OF
15
17
GB
OW
.C
OM
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
118
MCSO Memorandum to Trombi from Jakowinicz re

"Deputy Armendariz #1764" re complaints dated
2/21/2013 (MELC003737)
67
119
MCSO Memorandum to Jakowinicz from Trombi re

meeting with Armendariz dated 3/5/2013
(MELC003736)
85
136
Structural chart of the MCSO divisions (2007)

(MEL049519 - MEL049524)
97
151
Emails re "Video Collection" dated 2/19/2014

(MELC134397 - MELC134406)
49
154
MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings
110
155
Letter to Mr. Warshaw from Gerard Sheridan re

meeting that occurred 5/14/2014 dated
5/14/2014 (MELC134487 - MELC134488)
113
156
Redacted E-mail chain re "Scenarios for review

based on judge's order" (MELCl14918 MELCl14922; MELCl14949 - MELCl14954)
133
176
MCSO Memorandum from Palmer re "Video/Audio"

Dated 5/19/2014 (MELC098107 - MELC098109)
192
185
E-mail Chain from J. Sousa to T. Casey et al.

Re "Scenarios for Review Based on Judge's
Order" dated 1/24/2012 (MELCl14950-MELCl14954)
131
18
21
22
189
FR
23
24
25
E-mail from T. Casey to B. Sands et al. Re

"Melendres Order on Summary Judgment" dated
12/23/2011 (MELC165670 - MELC165672)
ND
20
187
IE
19
GB
OW
.C
OM
Admitted
FO
Description
TH
E
No.
OF
E X H I B I T S
256
E-mail Chain from T. Casey to L. Thomas et al. 189

Re "Scenarios For Review Based on Judge's
Order" dated 1/24/2012 (MELC165690 - MELC165695)
P R O C E E D I N G S
GB
OW
.C
OM
2
3
THE COURT:
Please be seated.
THE CLERK:
This is civil case 07-2513, Manuel de
Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al., versus Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.
This is the time set for an evidentiary hearing.
7
8
Counsel, please announce your appearance for the

record.
MS. WANG:
Good morning, Your Honor.
the ACLU for the plaintiffs.
11
THE COURT:
Good morning, Ms. Wang.
12
MR. YOUNG:
TH
E
THE COURT:
15
MR. SEGURA:
plaintiffs.
22
Good morning.
Andre Segura of the ACLU
09:01:17
Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona, for
ND
Good morning.
MR. POCHODA:
Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for
09:01:27
plaintiffs.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
Mr. Young.
MR. BENDOR:
19
20
Stanley Young,
OF
for the plaintiffs.
17
18
09:01:01
Covington & Burling, for the plaintiffs.
14
16
Cecillia Wang of
FO
10
13
09:00:53
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MS. IAFRATE:
24
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio.
25
Carrie Seahorn.
Michele
With me at the table is
Also representing Sheriff Arpaio is Tom Liddy
09:01:37
and Douglas Schwab with the Maricopa County Attorney's Office.
THE COURT:
MR. BIRNBAUM:
Good morning.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Gary
Birnbaum appearing specially for Deputy Chief John MacIntyre.
Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I have
another engagement this afternoon.
Patel will be sitting in this chair for me.
THE COURT:
MR. McDONALD:
You have that permission, Mr. Birnbaum.
Mel McDonald, special counsel for Joe
Arpaio.
11
MR. WALKER:
13
portion of the Maricopa County Government embodied by the Board
14
of Supervisors, the County Manager, and the appointed officials
15
serving under it.
TH
E
appearing on behalf of Maricopa County, or more precisely that
09:02:27
THE COURT:
All right.
17
MR. STEIN:
OF
16
22
S
ND
MR. COMO:
Lee Stein
Good morning.
Greg Como
09:02:36
appearing on behalf of Brian Sands.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
Good morning.
appearing specially for Chief Deputy Sheridan.
19
20
09:02:13
Richard Walker
12
18
09:01:54
An associate named Mitesh
FO
10
THE COURT:
Good morning.
MR. EISENBERG:
David
24
Eisenberg, special appearance on behalf of Lieutenant Joseph
25
Sousa.
09:02:51
THE COURT:
And -- oh.
MR. RAPP:
Good morning.
Sorry, Judge.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Good morning.
Christopher
Rapp on behalf of Sergeant Brett Palmer.
THE COURT:
Anyone else?
I don't know whether Sergeant Palmer is here.
All right.
Good morning.
see Lieutenant Sousa.
presume that is pursuant to my authorization for him to waive
MR. BIRNBAUM:
be here Thursday.
THE COURT:
14
MR. BIRNBAUM:
15
THE COURT:
That is correct, Your Honor.
He will
Thursday and Friday.
All right.
We have a few matters to take
care of that we discussed yesterday, and when we discussed them
17
yesterday telephonically I indicated I would put them on the
18
record today and resolve them.
Preliminarily, they relate to the Court of Appeals'
ND
19
opinion that came down last week, and it involves some
21
preliminary questions that I think we arrived at least at some

resolution of yesterday and wish to resolve, and then there was
a discovery dispute raised yesterday that needs to be resolved
FR
24
25
09:03:51
IE
20
23
09:03:29
OF
16
22
09:03:19
All right.
TH
E
13
FO
12
I don't see Chief MacIntyre, and I
his presence had he chose to do so.
11
09:03:00
I do
10
on the record before we begin.

Mr. Walker, as you know, the Court of Appeals directed
09:04:10
10
that Maricopa County should be added as a party, added as a
party to replace the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which
they deemed to be not a jural entity.
Maricopa County's right to seek reconsideration for or from the
Ninth Circuit to appeal it to an en banc panel or to the United
States Supreme Court, it is my understanding that you do not
object to Maricopa County at this point being named as a party
in this lawsuit.
Is that correct?
10
MR. WALKER:
11
THE COURT:
Without prejudicing

All right.
13
party.
TH
E
Maricopa County is now a party to this lawsuit and is a named
15
Mr. Walker, when I refer to "Maricopa County," I'm

referring to you.
All right?
And your clients.
There may be some confusion, Mr. Liddy, Ms. Iafrate,

between MCSO and Maricopa County, but I do recognize that, even
18
though the mandate has not yet issued from the Ninth Circuit
19
that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office per se is not a jural
20
entity, according to their current ruling.
21
is some sort of entity, I won't be -- if I talk about MCSO, I
IE
ND
17
24
25
And while it still
09:05:20
won't be intending to refer to it as a party.
FR
23
09:05:00
OF
16
22
09:04:49
And so I'm going to order that
12
14
09:04:33
FO
GB
OW
.C
OM
MR. LIDDY:
Your Honor, may I be heard on a related
THE COURT:
Yes.
point?
09:05:38
Your Honor, I am the practice group leader
for civil litigation, the civil division for --
GB
OW
.C
OM
MR. LIDDY:
11
THE COURT:
Can you slow down a little bit?
MR. LIDDY:
Yes, sir.
I'm the practice group leader for civil litigation in
Maricopa County.
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. LIDDY:
And as such I provide legal advice for
Maricopa County on a wide swath of issues.
The Ninth Circuit
action here has put me in a precarious position, and I am in
11
the process right now of analyzing whether or not there's a
12
substantial risk that either of my clients will be materially
13
affected by my representing the sheriff in this order to show
14
cause proceeding or in the litigation in general.
TH
E
15
And I would beg the Court's indulgence to give me a

little more time to seek counsel from ethics counsel and go
17
through these issues, but I may be at a point in the future
18
applying to this Court to withdraw as counsel of record for
19
Sheriff Arpaio in this proceeding.
ND
Well, I appreciate that clarification.
09:06:27
Let me ask you, do you want to leave counsel table now so that
there isn't any imputation of impropriety against you or any
harm to your clients if, in fact, you determine that you need
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
22
09:06:13
OF
16
21
09:05:56
FO
10
20
09:05:46
24
to withdraw from this action?
25
MR. LIDDY:
I think that's the $64,000 question, Your
09:06:48
12
Honor, and I can only speak for myself and not for the County
Attorney, but as the ethical canons go directly to the attorney
and not my superiors, my answer is yes, Your Honor, I would
feel more comfortable if I left the table now.
THE COURT:
All right.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to allow you to do
that while you work out your -- your ethical questions.
I'll advise you, Mr. Liddy, that if you want to return to
counsel table during the course of this or other proceedings
you can let me know.
And
But I would appreciate, of course, and I don't want to

rush it because I realize it requires some thought, I would
12
appreciate, to the extent you can come to a resolution of
13
whether or not you need to withdraw, that you do so, but I will
14
ask you until you come to that conclusion that you not
15
participate in this matter.
TH
E
11
Is that all right?
09:07:34
MR. LIDDY:
That's all right.
17
THE COURT:
All right.
18
That does raise another point with the Ninth Circuit's
Understood, Your Honor.
Thank you.
OF
16
opinion.
20
cases there is a functional equivalence between a suit brought
21
against Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity and a suit
IE
09:07:49
against Maricopa County as the jural entity, I could consider

dismissing Sheriff Arpaio in his official capacity.
FR
23
It said because there is a functional -- in many
ND
19
22
09:07:21
FO
10
09:07:05
And while
24
I will still consider doing that, I'm not going to do it today
25
because I want to give the parties an opportunity to address it
09:08:10
13
and I want to also consider the ramifications as it may relate
to this and other proceedings.
party from raising any consideration about it.
was also sued in his individual capacity, and that does not --
that is not being changed.
GB
OW
.C
OM
But I'm not preventing any
Sheriff Arpaio
Further, the Ninth Circuit, while it sustained, I
think, the great majority of everything that was appealed, it
did indicate that as it pertained to that part of my
supplementary injunctive relief that related to the monitor's
oversight of internal investigations, I had to indicate in that
11
supplemental injunction that the authority extends only to
12
matters that are related to this lawsuit.
13
Again, I will do that.
TH
E
I'll follow the Ninth
Circuit's direction, but I do want to allow the parties to be
15
heard on the scope, if any, of necessary changes to the
16
supplementary injunction in light of the Ninth Circuit's order.
09:09:13
OF
14
17
But I also want to make a record now so that all

parties understand that the Ninth Circuit is bound by the facts
19
that existed at the time that the notice of appeal was filed,
20
and so other facts were not considered by the Ninth Circuit in
21
its appeal.
IE
ND
18
This case has been far from static.
09:09:36
There have been a
great number of developments since the notice of appeal in this
FR
23
09:08:57
FO
10
22
09:08:35
24
case was filed.
Among them was the disclosure last May by the
25
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and the defendants in this
09:09:55
14
matter relating to what was discovered in Deputy Armendariz's
home, a cache of different items -- identifications, drugs,
other things -- that touched off investigations in this matter
and demonstrated the existence of evidence that was requested
by the plaintiffs prior to the underlying lawsuit but were
never provided, or at least the possibility that there existed
such evidence.
video recordings, a great number and variety of items seized
during traffic stops of members of the plaintiff class.
GB
OW
.C
OM
That included audio recordings,
It
also revealed -- further investigation has revealed complaints
11
about MCSO deputies, including Deputy Armendariz, that may or
12
may not have been adequately resolved.
It also revealed poor and perhaps illegal supervision
TH
E
13
of those deputies in their functions.
15
May 14th we had a hearing here, part of which was

under seal.
17
which I advised -- and this is only going to be a rough
18
characterization.
19
disagree, Ms. Iafrate -- I know you weren't there yet -- if you
20
disagree with my characterization, I invite you to seek to
21
correct me.
It was subsequently taken out from under seal in
IE
ND
Chief Deputy, if you disagree, if you
09:11:18
I advised Chief Deputy Sheridan at the time, who
brought forth these allegations and their concerning nature,
FR
23
09:11:01
OF
16
22
09:10:39
FO
10
14
09:10:21
24
that it might be wise for Maricopa County to turn over the
25
investigation of these matters to another law enforcement
09:11:32
authority.
wanted to -- for the MCSO to maintain control of the
investigation.
Chief Deputy Sheridan did not want to do that.
He
GB
OW
.C
OM
15
I indicated to him at that time that if he was going
to maintain control of the investigation that my monitor was
going to be supervising and reviewing the MCSO's investigation
and that needed to proceed under his authority, and the MCSO at
that time on the record stated that it had no objection to
doing so.
Long story short of that is because so many things
11
eventually surfaced, and I'm not sure that we yet know them
12
all, from materials that related to the Armendariz
13
investigation as well as the Cisco Perez allegations and other
14
allegations that have since been investigated or partially
15
investigated by the MCSO that relate to the underlying lawsuit,
16
the adequacy of MCSO's self-investigation is very much at issue
17
in this case, and I've always made it clear that it was.
18
MCSO has never taken a contrary position, to my
TH
E
OF
20
self-investigation still remains very much an item of possible
21
relevance in this hearing as it pertains to relief that I might
IE
09:12:47
grant to plaintiffs.
FR
23
09:12:23
knowledge, since May 14th, and the adequacy of MCSO's
ND
19
22
09:12:04
FO
10
09:11:49
And I point out that although there has apparently
24
been much talk about contempt, and contempt is certainly very
25
much a part of this hearing, this is also a hearing related to
09:13:07
16
discovery sanctions for material that was never provided by the
defendants to the plaintiffs in this matter.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And so I will be interested in the extent and nature
of that material and how it may have affected the underlying
case or plaintiffs' presentation of the underlying case and
issues related to the underlying case.
the MCSO is doing that investigation, the adequacy of their
investigation is very much at issue and I will so rule on any
evidentiary objection that comes up, and you can preserve, I
And, of course, since
understand, Ms. Iafrate, any objections you have to that to the
11
Ninth Circuit.
12
that the adequacy of MCSO's investigation is pertinent and
13
fundamental to this matter.
TH
E
But we will proceed under the understanding
To that end, when I scheduled this hearing some months

ago I got an estimate from you, Ms. Iafrate, I got a
16
commitment, I think, from you as to when those investigations
17
would end.
18
some independent investigations, which he did, and then stopped
19
in deference to the MCSO's self-investigation.
20
number of those.
21
that are completed but there are approximately 31 more that my
There are a
I think you've identified in court 20 of them
09:14:29
IE
ND
You will recall that I empowered my monitor to do
monitor has never been informed were completed, and there are
two very important ones that relate to the MCSO's
FR
23
09:14:13
OF
15
22
09:13:50
FO
10
14
09:13:27
24
self-investigation of some of its command staff, including the
25
individual persons here that have been noticed for contempt,
09:14:49
17
and those investigations, while -- well, let me just say this:
While I believe Detective Vogel, who is an outside source that
MCSO contracted with to conduct those investigations, has
completed his investigation, the MCSO directed Detective Vogel
that his ability to find policy violations and impose -- and
recommend and impose discipline was not within his purview.
GB
OW
.C
OM
So while his reports have been completed and I have
been provided with them, it is my understanding that there has
been no completion of that investigation.
That's correct, isn't it, Ms. Iafrate?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
FO
10
13
with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to finish and to
14
impose discipline.
TH
E
the four investigations that were assigned to Mr. Vogel are now
THE COURT:
All right.
16
What about the other approximately 31 open

investigations that have not been completed on this matter that
18
relate to the initial Armendariz and/or Cisco Perez matters and
19
that sprang from that or from the monitor's initial
20
investigations?
24
25
ND
09:16:10
The Internal Affairs group continues to
IE
MS. IAFRATE:
work with monitor Kiyler to push those through as quickly as

possible, Your Honor.
FR
23
17
22
09:15:55
OF
15
09:15:38
The two of
12
21
09:15:13
THE COURT:
Well, I appreciate that, but I will tell
you that I've been consulting with the monitor and with monitor
09:16:23
18
Kiyler and they have not been informed as to the status of
those investigations despite repeated requests.
that during the pendency of this hearing the monitor team is in
town.
to prepare for us -- well, let me get to the bottom line.
I scheduled some time ago with you, based on the
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'll also say
They're doing their normal audit.
Yesterday, in trying
possibility that I hoped would not be necessary, the
continuation of this contempt hearing on June 16, 17, 18, 19.
Because the monitor has had no chance to evaluate your internal

investigations and because we know not where they stand, a
11
large number of them, and because I need to know what his view
12
is of those investigations, and I think, in fairness, you have
13
an opportunity to respond to that adequacy, we're going to hold
14
the hearings on June 16, 17, 18, 19 as it relates to the
15
adequacy of the investigations and as it relates to the
16
discovery that you haven't yet provided even though there were
17
months -- you had months-long notice, and any -- and we're
18
going to proceed today, but anybody -- I'm going to make it
19
clear.
20
and Ms. Wang has informed me that she can go forward and has
21
plenty to fill these four days, is subject to recall, because
TH
E
OF
ND
Anybody who's called and testifies in these hearings,

09:17:47
these matters have not yet been provided, subject to recall in

that June hearing, and if we still don't have documents in that
FR
23
09:17:29
IE
22
09:17:07
FO
10
09:16:47
24
June hearing, or if we still don't have matters that I think
25
are relevant, then I'm going to take appropriate action at that
09:18:06
19
time.
What that comes back to is, I've asked the monitors to
GB
OW
.C
OM
2
3
be prompt about evaluating the investigation when it is
complete, not just the 542 and 543 investigations, but the 31
other investigations, both as to their adequacy as to things
that were and were not investigated and other matters.
They tried yesterday to request documents to help them
prepare for the adequacy of that investigation.
informed by MCSO, even though there was an attorney there when
They were
they made the request who could have reviewed the documents,
11
and I think one of the things they were asking for was a menu
12
of internal investigations that have been done, they were
13
informed by MCSO that no one, including the attorney, could
14
authorize the release of those documents until you approved.
TH
E
I understand that you're very busy personally, but
16
I -- as I think we've discussed very early on when you came
17
into this matter, while I want the attorneys to be able to
18
review the documents so that there aren't inadvertent
19
disclosures, I don't want to delay my monitor or anybody else,
20
any other party in this investigation.
ND
09:19:18
IE
So I would request you to consider if there are not
people in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, even if not

Mr. Liddy or others, that can be authorized to review those
FR
23
09:18:59
OF
15
22
09:18:43
FO
10
21
09:18:22
24
documents and to provide them to the monitors or list an
25
objection while they are here in their audit performance so
09:19:34
that we can proceed if we have to and be ready to go in the
June matter, even if we have -- I just don't want to let this
go on any further.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Is there any problem with that?
MS. IAFRATE:
No, Your Honor.
I believed that what --
and I received this information secondhand.
what they wanted to do was Bates stamp the documents before
they were delivered, because there have been some inadvertent
disclosures.
THE COURT:
I believed that
All that makes sense, and again, I'm not
trying to deprive an attorney from the opportunity to review
12
that to protect those things, but I don't -- you're very busy
13
and you're going to be here for the next four days.
14
want to delay the monitor's document production, but without
15
depriving you of the opportunity to do appropriate review, so
16
it sounds like we can proceed on that basis.
OF
TH
E
11
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
09:20:25
Yes.
Now, the other reason that we are going to
20
it this week, but we're going to have it again in June -- is
21
because yesterday Ms. Wang raised to me, and if you want me to
09:20:39
IE
ND
potentially have to continue this hearing -- again, we'll have
go through the whole chronology that we went through yesterday,

I will, but she raised with me the issue that when I -- I
FR
23
09:20:08
I don't
19
22
09:19:52
FO
10
That was my request.
20
24
entered an order in February for the MCSO to provide certain
25
documents.
Mr. Young, earlier this month, indicated that some
09:21:00
of those documents had not yet been provided, and you and he
had a telephonic conference with me when I ordered the
production, the clear and methodical production of certain
documents that had not yet been provided, and I ordered a
process for you to go through.
GB
OW
.C
OM
At that time, approximately, as I understand it, you
made a request to the, I don't know, the data storage section
of the MCSO to give you a database search, and what you got
back was not responsive to the request that you had made.
11
Is that -- I see you shaking your head.
FO
10
it wrong?
12
MS. IAFRATE:
You are, Your Honor.
Am I stating
14
Sheriff's Office.
Maricopa County.
19
MS. IAFRATE:
18
22
24
25
Did you make the request to MCSO?
09:21:47
Well, I made the request to MCSO and
ND
Okay.
MS. IAFRATE:
So they're two separate requests that
09:21:57
were made.
THE COURT:
Okay.
And that was right after that
initial telephonic conference that you and I had with Mr. Young
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
09:21:36
Did I say Maricopa County?
17
20
Okay.
OF
16
TH
E
gets confusing between Maricopa County and Maricopa County
THE COURT:
09:21:17
This is where it
13
15
21
earlier this month?

MS. IAFRATE:
Yes.
09:22:07
THE COURT:
Okay.
22
And as we had learned earlier in
this matter, MCSO -- Maricopa County apparently has a separate
database of documents that contains all of MCSO's electronic
documents.
5
6
MS. IAFRATE:
GB
OW
.C
OM
Certain -- certain documents, yes, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
Anyway, your response, either from Maricopa County or
Okay.
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was not responsive to what

you had requested.
And then you took it upon yourself to do an
11
individual computer review with the named contemnors and
12
certain other relevant parties, and you did that on April 10th,
13
and you made that avowal to the plaintiffs, and I think, as I
14
recall, didn't have a whole lot of other documents to turn
15
over.
TH
E
Didn't have any.
09:22:53
Then certain other discovery disputes were resolved
OF
16
and certain depositions were reopened, and when they were
18
reopened there was the mention of other documents that were
19
clearly related that had not yet been produced.
20
and produced one of those documents that was authored by
21
Lieutenant Sousa, and one of the persons whose deposition was
You went back
IE
ND
17
09:23:09
reopened was Lieutenant Jakowinicz.
FR
23
09:22:32
FO
10
22
09:22:20
So Lieutenant Jakowinicz's deposition had to be opened
24
for a -- reopened for a second time because he had been a
25
recipient of the Sousa document.
09:23:29
23
And then after the second reopening of detective -Lieutenant Jakowinicz's documents, he provided you with 15 more
documents.
privilege, the plaintiffs assert some sort of inadequacy of
privilege as to some but not all of those documents.
did produce one document.
You reviewed those.
GB
OW
.C
OM
As to seven, you've asserted a
And you
Plaintiffs have informed me that that one document
indicates that there are yet other documents in the same e-mail
string that have never been provided and about which they are
curious, and at this point, in light of the pendency of this
11
hearing, they've requested that the monitor oversee document
12
production in this case.
You entered the objection, reasonable, I think, that
TH
E
13
14
you don't want the document -- you don't want the monitor
15
reviewing attorney-client-privileged documents.
09:24:18
So what I indicated I was inclined to do was require
OF
16
17
the monitor to come up with a systematic measure -- oh, I'm
18
sorry.
19
conference yesterday that while you did make a follow-up
20
request to him after the problem with the Jakowinicz documents
21
came clear, he only received that for the first time on Sunday,
09:24:35
IE
ND
Before I get to that, Mr. Walker indicated in the
and Maricopa County is glad to do a database search but they

can't give you everything by this week.
FR
23
09:24:03
FO
10
22
09:23:49
24
You're shaking your head again.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
Well, Your Honor, I made the request to
09:24:49
Maricopa County before Mr. Walker was even a thought in this
case.
3
4
THE COURT:
I got that.
aware of it until Sunday.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Right.
Okay.
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
Mr. Walker didn't become
And he's glad to make sure that
that happens but he can't guarantee that it will happen by the
end of this week.
Is that correct, Mr. Walker?

MR. WALKER:
Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
12
So my inclination is to have the monitor review any
All right.
plan for a database search, to have the monitor take account of
14
the documents that that database search reveals but without
15
reviewing those documents allow you to review them so that you
16
can make assertions as to attorney-client privilege that may
17
apply to any of those documents, and then he can spot check the
18
other documents to make sure -- the other documents, for
19
example, the ones that you deem nonresponsive, he can just spot
20
check them if he wants to to make sure they're nonresponsive.
21
The other documents will be turned over to plaintiff and then
25
ND
IE
09:25:48
we will resolve any privilege disputes as it pertains to the

privilege log.
FR
24
09:25:29
OF
TH
E
13
23
09:25:11
FO
10
22
09:25:03
That is what I indicated my inclination was.
have any objection to proceeding in that fashion?
Do you
09:26:04
MS. IAFRATE:
No, Your Honor.
Will the magistrate be
the one determining the disputes regarding privilege, or will
it be you?
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
25
Well, it will be me unless it requires
somebody to look at the content of the document, and if it
does, I think even though it's not required for reasons of
prudence, as we've said before, we've got Judge Boyle here, and
I really didn't have to use Judge Boyle in the first place but
I think he graciously volunteered, and I can understand why the

defendants wouldn't want me to look at documents that may be
11
subject to the attorney-client privilege.
12
has some objection, my inclination would be to refer all such
13
documents back to Magistrate Judge Boyle.
14
MS. WANG:
TH
E
FO
10
Your Honor, we would not have any objection

We would like to have input
16
as the monitor team comes up with a plan for the review of the
17
documents.
We have some ideas for how that might be expedited.

Yeah.
THE COURT:
Actually, I did express it that way, but I don't mean
ND
19
to suggest that you shouldn't try to resolve this yourself.
21
But when you do resolve it I'm going to ask you, or get as
09:27:10
IE
20
close to resolution as can, I'm going to ask you to submit it

to the monitor, make sure that he can approve that method for
FR
23
09:26:52
OF
to that referral to Judge Boyle.
22
09:26:37
So unless Ms. Wang
15
18
09:26:21
24
document production and database searching, both the Maricopa
25
County database and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
09:27:31
database.
MS. WANG:
To be clear, Your Honor, I think we've come
GB
OW
.C
OM
26
to the end of the road in terms of attempting to work this out
with the defendants.
plan for review of the documents.
THE COURT:
We do request that the monitor impose a
All right.
Well, I will allow you, as I
will allow Chief Sands and the other defendants, to have access
to the monitor to make whatever recommendations you want.

MS. WANG:
Thank you, Your Honor.
10
THE COURT:
11
Yes?
12
MR. WALKER:
All right.
Your Honor, I just wanted to advise the
Court after our conference call yesterday I asked paralegals at
14
my office to check to see what we have in electronic form that
15
would be readily available for search.
16
recall, PST files, e-mail files, for all the individuals for
17
whom a request has been made by the plaintiffs but only for
18
part of the period that they requested.
And we do have, as I
Having gone through this before in another action, I
ND
19
know that if we want to have access to e-mails for a portion of
21
the period for which we do not already have PST files, we will
have to restore PST files from the disaster recovery tapes, and
that is both an expensive and time-consuming process.
FR
24
25
09:28:39
IE
20
23
09:28:12
OF
TH
E
13
22
09:27:58
FO
09:27:42
THE COURT:
Well, I appreciate that.
As you say, we
have been through this before in this very action, and while I
09:29:03
27
don't intend to impose costs that plaintiffs agree are not
necessary and that I don't think are necessary, even if
plaintiffs don't agree, I may well require such costs to be
incurred to the extent that we can't cull those documents from
the MCSO database.
GB
OW
.C
OM
But again, I will leave the details of that for the
moment up to the monitor, and I would direct both parties --
all parties to have access to the monitor if you want sooner
rather than later, because we're not going to wait until June
before we start raising issues about discovery disputes.
11
I'm just going to remind everybody, if you've got a

cell phone in here, you should turn it off, and if the marshals
13
see you using your cell phone you'll be escorted out of the
14
building.
15
ability to use a cell phone but that's simply because, as I've
16
indicated, their whole team is here doing one of their periodic
17
audit reviews and they have to have some contact with them.
TH
E
12
I have granted to the monitors who are here the
OF
All right.
19
discovery dispute yesterday?
22
ND
MS. WANG:
I believe so.
09:30:20
I believe so, Your Honor.
We do have some other logistical issues that we wanted
to raise with the Court.
FR
23
Have we resolved everything related to the
MS. IAFRATE:
IE
21
09:30:03
18
20
09:29:40
FO
10
09:29:20
24
THE COURT:
25
MS. WANG:
All right.
Okay.
Let's get them taken care of.

09:30:31
First, Your Honor, is that plaintiffs request that

witnesses be excluded during the testimony of others.
GB
OW
.C
OM
28
Second, Your Honor, we do have a question about the
time keeping.
We have only four days and a number of witnesses
with both parties and Chief Sands engaging in questioning.
we just wanted to ask logistically how to handle the issue of
keeping track of time so that we conclude everything by Friday.
THE COURT:
assignment of time?
Well, do you want me to give you an
Because I didn't -- I did not really do
that.
11
MS. WANG:
13
THE COURT:
All right.
TH
E
assignment of time.
You can -- I believe that we
discussed yesterday the idea that, in order to be efficient, if
15
a witness is going to be called in your case and Ms. Iafrate
16
intends to call her in her case or Chief Sands intends to call
17
that witness in his case, I'm just going to allow, if you all
18
agree, and I think it makes great sense, to do that witness
19
once.
ND
do direct.
09:31:30
Then I'll allow the other parties to do cross.
Then I'll allow you to do -- and in their cross I will allow

them a great deal of liberality to raise new matters.
FR
23
I'll allow you, for example, if it's your witness, to
IE
22
09:31:15
OF
14
21
09:31:02
No, I don't think we would like an
12
20
09:30:43
FO
10
So
Then
24
your redirect I'll also allow you a great deal of liberality to
25
cross as to the matters that they raised for the first time.
09:31:46
And then on their redirect I will hold them to issues really
that were -- that are implicated by your redirect.
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
Understood, Your Honor.
Do you have any other suggestions for
being efficient as we move through these witnesses and
evidence?
29
MS. WANG:
No, Your Honor.
I think we can play it by
ear.
consult and try to keep us on track as we go along.
If it looks like we're running behind schedule we'll
THE COURT:
I really don't think we need to spend a
FO
10
whole lot of time on a lot of matters.
12
matters have been stipulated to, and if they haven't been I
13
would suggest that you take a minute at lunch or after the end
14
of the hearing today to see if you can arrive at stipulations
15
that will clear out a bunch of unnecessary testimony, because I
16
don't need it.
That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to listen to

the facts and circumstances that surround the contempt, and I
19
think the contempt has been admitted to by some but not all of
20
the parties.
ND
18
09:32:47
IE
It doesn't mean either that I'm not interested in the
discovery aspect of this case, even to the extent it goes

beyond contempt, as to what you weren't provided and what
FR
23
09:32:30
OF
17
22
09:32:13
I believe that some
TH
E
11
21
09:32:00
24
difference that would have made to your case in chief is going
25
to be a matter of some interest to me in terms of coming up
09:33:01
with appropriate remedies in this case.
But it does seem to me that even though, you know, the
GB
OW
.C
OM
30
public might be interested, and I certainly don't want to
deprive the public of an opportunity to be informed,
stipulations can serve that purpose if there is no reason other
than the facts to be set forth.
So I encourage you to explore that with the parties to

see if we can arrive at stipulations.
9
10
MS. WANG:
We have made some efforts so far, Your
Honor, which have not been successful.
11
THE COURT:
Well, if they haven't been successful then
I'll point out that fortunately, in addition to the four days
13
this week, we've now got four days that have opened up in June.
TH
E
12
14
And as I said yesterday, I'm not going to go through

and spend all the time that I spent last time and find out that
16
evidence was not provided.
17
back five, six, seven or eight times, we will get all the
18
evidence and we will hear the testimony and we're going to
19
finish with this case.
22
24
25
That is my intent.
ND
And so if we have to call witnesses
It seems to me that we are better off -- again, I
09:34:05
don't want to be inefficient, but it seems to me we're better

off finishing this case now than dragging it off -- dragging it
out forever and finding new evidence and other matters that are
FR
23
09:33:45
IE
21
OF
15
20
09:33:33
FO
09:33:18
going to require the reopening again of these things.

Ms. Iafrate, did you want to be heard on that?
09:34:21
31
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, Your Honor.
I would request that you do submit an allocation of
GB
OW
.C
OM
time for each party.
that by the time we get to Friday we will be out of time.
at least some guidance of how much time each party would have,
it concerns me that we won't get to Sheriff Arpaio's witnesses.
THE COURT:
We do have witnesses also.
My fear is
With
Well, I'll tell you what, Ms. Iafrate.
What we will do, then -- because I'll -- you see if you have
other dates between now and June that you can hold open.
If
you're concerned, we'll give you the time you need and I'll
11
find another date even between now and June when we can have
12
more testimony.
But you will have the opportunity to present
13
your witnesses.
I will just -- even if it isn't immediately in
14
this section, there's going to be supplemental hearings.
15
You'll have the time to present your witnesses and I will hear
16
them, but I do want to do that efficiently.
TH
E
09:35:12
OF
17
I'm not in any position right at the moment to give

time allocations but I would be glad to discuss that with the
19
parties.
20
especially it is difficult when I'm allowing what I think is an
21
efficient procedure -- well, I guess I could do that.
18
IE
ND
If you want to discuss it we can talk about it.
But
09:35:28
I'll
just charge you the time that you're up and asking questions.
FR
23
09:34:57
FO
10
22
09:34:38
So I will keep track of it beginning right now.
24
will give you your running totals, and then if I decide I'm
25
going to assert a total, your running total will go against
09:35:47
your total time.
All right?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
32
Ms. Como, anything on that?

Your Honor, the only --
What we're going to need to do, we're
going to need to have you speak into a microphone always,
Mr. Como.
break, realign yourself so that you're in front of a
So maybe we need to, after you come back after the
microphone, but as it is now, would you please come over to the
11
podium?
12
MR. COMO:
13
Your Honor, I understand about having Mr. Sands, for
TH
E
Sure.
14
example, testify on direct following the cross by the
15
plaintiffs, and I have no problem with that for efficiency
16
purposes.
17
want to reserve our right to recall him in the event that other
18
evidence comes out from other witnesses after he testifies.
OF
S
ND
THE COURT:
All right.
You can make that appropriate
I'm not going to require anyone who I
21
have individually noticed as being a party to contempt to leave
09:36:42
IE
motion at that time.
the courtroom, but every other person who has been called as a
witness will need to leave the courtroom because we are
FR
23
09:36:27
However, I simply want to be clear that we would
20
22
09:36:11
FO
10
19
09:35:54
24
invoking the rule of exclusion and you'll have to wait outside
25
subject to call.
09:37:01
So if you have been notified that you are a witness in

this matter and you have not been individually noticed as
somebody who is subject to contempt, you must leave the
courtroom at this time and wait in the waiting area.
waiting rooms right behind the courtroom.
GB
OW
.C
OM
(Witnesses are excused from the courtroom.)
MR. WALKER:
There are
Your Honor, may I be heard on the
County's participation in this matter?
THE COURT:
10
MR. WALKER:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. WALKER:
You may.
Would you like me to come to the podium?

Sure.
14
Board of Supervisors is not at all interested in causing
15
unnecessary disruption or unnecessarily prolonging this matter.
16
To the contrary, they'd very much like to see it brought to a
17
just and expeditious conclusion without the imposition of undue
18
financial burdens on the Maricopa County taxpayers.
09:38:04
OF
TH
E
in the conference call we had yesterday, the Maricopa County
That said, as we discussed yesterday, I was retained
ND
19
to become involved in this case last Friday, and neither I, nor
21
anyone from my firm, participated in any of the discovery that
IE
20
09:38:28
was run up to this proceeding.
FR
23
09:37:38
First of all, Your Honor, as I indicated
13
22
09:37:19
FO
33
And for that reason, and also because I think that the
24
outcome of the issues that we are probably going to raise with
25
the Court of Appeals with regard to ordering the County to
09:38:54
34
participate as a party, could actually affect the course of
these proceedings in some ways that at this point are difficult
to fathom.
GB
OW
.C
OM
We'd respectfully request a brief delay in the
proceedings, one, to permit us to get those issues before the
Court of Appeals; and two, to give me and my firm a reasonable
opportunity to prepare.
8
9
You've already indicated both in the telephone
conference yesterday and here today what your inclination is in

that regard and I respect that, but for the record, I'd still
11
request the delay.
12
THE COURT:
All right.
I do think -- I can't fathom,
as I thought through it, I mean, Ms. Iafrate is representing
14
the defendants in this action.
15
jural entity that was briefed before the Court of Appeals, and
16
they indicated that they're only moving in Maricopa County
17
because Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a jural entity.
TH
E
13
The question really related to
OF
09:39:54
Unless you can tell me why you believe that
18
Ms. Iafrate is incapable of representing any liability
20
interests that may arise from the defendants that she is
21
representing, we're going to proceed.
IE
ND
19
MR. WALKER:
09:40:15
Well, Your Honor, I have nothing but the
greatest respect for Ms. Iafrate and in her capabilities, but
FR
23
09:39:31
FO
10
22
09:39:13
24
the interests of the sheriff and the Maricopa County Sheriff's
25
Office and the portion of the county government that I
09:40:39
represent are not necessarily entirely coincident.
My understanding --
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
I do realize that, Mr. Walker, and I think
I've been very careful to try and keep Maricopa County
government well aware of what's happening here.
representatives here at virtually every proceeding or I've
invited them to be here.
8
9
35
They have had
Further, as I told you on the phone yesterday,

Maricopa County was a party to this action.
After Judge
Murguia made her determination that Maricopa County Sheriff's
11
Office was a jural entity, Maricopa County asked to be
12
dismissed from this action.
13
charge of this case and I agreed, based on the stipulation of
14
the parties, to dismiss Maricopa County from this action only
15
on the stipulation that if we ever needed them, they would be
16
reintroduced into this action and the action could proceed.
17
As I indicated yesterday on the phone, and you may
09:41:29
OF
TH
E
I agreed -- and by then I was in
have told Ms. Gilbride, but, Ms. Gilbride, if we didn't tell
19
you I'm telling you now what I stated on the phone yesterday,
20
that at a previous proceeding when Ms. Gilbride -- I questioned
21
Ms. Gilbride about the nature of her appeal about Maricopa
09:41:48
IE
ND
18
County Sheriff's Office not being a jural entity and if there

was any reason why, as far as she was concerned, we needed to
FR
23
09:41:09
FO
10
22
09:40:52
24
insert Maricopa County as a party at that point, and I believe
25
other representatives of the County were here, and my
09:42:09
36
recollection is they are on the record saying we could proceed
and they didn't need to be a party because they were just
trying to make a resolution of the issue once and for all at
the Ninth Circuit as well as at the Court of Appeals whether or
not Maricopa County, or Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, was
an entity capable of being sued.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Now, have I mischaracterized that, Ms. Gilbride?
MS. GILBRIDE:
THE COURT:
No, that's correct, Your Honor.
All right.
So as I indicated to you yesterday, I believe we had
FO
10
County folks here said we could proceed.
There has been a
12
tremendous amount of expense and effort.
I can't really see
13
that the County's interests aren't being fully and completely
14
represented by Ms. Iafrate in a representation of the
15
defendants here.
16
of Appeals opinion has said.
TH
E
11
I think that is the effect of what the Court
09:42:54
I do recognize your right and your concern about

representing the separate interests of your client, but I don't
19
think that any of the facts here are going to change, and you
20
can certainly represent them as vigorously as you can, and as
21
is apparent at this point, we are going to have further
09:43:12
IE
ND
18
proceedings in this matter and I will consider any interests

that you have to be heard on points related to the County that
FR
23
09:42:38
OF
17
22
09:42:25
24
you couldn't have previously raised before these hearings come
25
to a close.
09:43:31
MR. WALKER:
37
I understand, Your Honor, and I respect
your position.
I'd just like to state for the record that the
County has been brought back in as a party.
It was not sought by the County or any of the parties.
I've been in the case just long enough to be able to begin to
recognize what questions need to be asked, not to be in a
position, really, to provide definitive answers.
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
GB
OW
.C
OM
Well --
It was unexpected.
And
Quite frankly, I think the Ninth Circuit
has thrown us all a bit of a curve ball here, and I just think
11
that it -- it would make sense in terms of efficiency and
12
orderliness for us to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to
13
reconsider its position before we move forward with anything
14
substantive.
TH
E
15
And in that regard, I'd say, although it's not

entirely clear what the Court intended, at this point I think I
17
have to operate on the assumption, and I believe the Court has
18
to operate on the assumption, that the Ninth Circuit intended
19
for Maricopa County to become a party for all purposes and with
20
all the rights of a full-fledged party.
ND
09:44:47
IE
And if we had been a party while this discovery was
going on and it somehow had been scheduled behind our backs and
conducted without our knowing about it and participating in it,
FR
23
09:44:28
OF
16
22
09:44:09
FO
10
21
09:43:53
24
I'm sure Your Honor would be receptive to the notion that that
25
wasn't fair and it put my client at an unfair disadvantage.
09:45:10
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
This wasn't quite how I envisioned today going.
38
Do you wish to be heard on this, Mr. Como?
Ms. Iafrate?
GB
OW
.C
OM
No, Your Honor.
Yes, Your Honor.
Someone from my team has left the table, which is news to me
today.
that there could be some conflict that somehow affects me.
prepared to defend the clients that I'm here to defend.
I hear the concerns of Maricopa County.
I'm concerned
I'm
However, based on what I hear from Mr. Liddy and Mr. Walker, I
11
am concerned regarding these issues that the Ninth Circuit has
12
thrust upon us.

THE COURT:
And so?
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
TH
E
13
17
And so I've made my record.
You haven't made any motion at all.
What
MS. IAFRATE:
Well, I would support Mr. Walker's
request that we have ethics counsel figure out whether we are
19
in synced with Maricopa County or there is some potential for
20
conflict so that the attorneys that are here representing the
21
individual clients are not walking into an ethical quagmire
ND
IE
09:46:26
without assistance from ethics counsel.
FR
23
18
22
09:46:05
What is your position with respect to it?
OF
is your motion?
09:45:51
FO
10
16
09:45:27
THE COURT:
Have you -- you've not considered your
24
ethical responsibilities prior to today in light of the Ninth
25
Circuit's decision?
09:46:48
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
And have you sought ethics counsel?

No, I have not, Your Honor.
Um-hum.
I have been discussing it with Maricopa
County.
7
8
Yes, I did, Your Honor.
GB
OW
.C
OM
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Because I represent Maricopa County in
issues and I represent Sheriff Arpaio in issues, and what I'm
11
hearing today is that potentially their issues in this
12
courtroom may not align.
Do you have any reason to believe that
TH
E
THE COURT:
14
their issues don't align -- that the factual issues don't
15
align?
MS. IAFRATE:
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
16
09:47:22
Yes.
And what is that basis?
Based on Mr. Liddy asking to be removed
from the table and conversations that I've had with Maricopa
20
County, including Bill Montgomery and Mr. Fall.
MS. WANG:
09:47:34
Ms. Wang?
Your Honor, plaintiffs oppose the County's
motion to stay these proceedings.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
22
ND
19
21
09:47:04
FO
10
13
09:46:54
On what basis do you believe that you may
be ethically constrained?
39
Essentially, under the Ninth
24
Circuit's opinion, the County has now stepped into the shoes of
25
MCSO as a party.
MCSO has been represented throughout these
09:48:01
proceedings and the County is simply stepping in.
has chosen to retain new counsel.
The County
GB
OW
.C
OM
40
But for all purposes of this contempt hearing where
the fact issues have to do with what the individual contemnors
did and with what the agency did, we don't believe that there
are any issues that require a stay.
In effect, the entity that's responsible has changed
from MCSO to the County, but the issues are the same, and
plaintiffs are ready to proceed and believe that a stay would
prejudice our interests in seeing the civil contempt proceeding
11
go forward, particularly, Your Honor, since we know that we are
12
going to be continuing witness examinations in June.
13
will be plenty of time, to the extent Mr. Walker wants to get
14
up to speed and raise issues, particularly having to do with
15
remedies, at a later point before the Court makes any decision.
TH
E
FO
10
THE COURT:
All right.
OF
16
09:49:01
I am going to say that I have
18
Circuit's opinion, which I believe is based essentially on the
19
opinion of the Arizona Court of Appeals, and I think it makes
20
clear that all it is talking about is the nominally appropriate
21
party, and that all it is dealing with here is putting in place
09:49:19
IE
ND
read, I think, carefully, a couple of times, the Ninth
the nominally appropriate party, that it makes no factual

difference.
FR
23
09:48:41
There
17
22
09:48:19
24
Ms. Iafrate, if you could tell me some basis on which
25
I thought that you were really compromising yourself ethically
09:49:37
41
from what you have always been doing, I would not compel you to
proceed with this hearing.
of matters that I have just reviewed, we are going to have to
have multiple supplement -- multiple, several different
schedulings of this hearing.
GB
OW
.C
OM
But it does seem to me that because
Mr. Walker, I'm going to, as I said, allow you to do
any makeup you need to do, but it seems to me, based on the
positions taken in this court when I heard from Maricopa County
as opposed to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, they may be
trying to make some argument that Maricopa County as an entity
11
is not financially liable for the contempt of Sheriff Arpaio
12
and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

But that seems to me to be a legal argument, not a
TH
E
13
factual argument.
It doesn't seem to me that it -- because you
15
are separately represented here now, to the extent you want to
16
establish such a thing, I'll allow you to take depositions or
17
do whatever you feel like you need to do prior to the end of
18
this hearing, which will be continued for several months.
09:50:34
OF
14
Ms. Iafrate, I'm sympathetic to you.
If you can come
ND
19
up with some sort of reason why you really think, in light of
21
the Ninth Circuit's opinion, that you really have some sort of
IE
20
conflict, then I'll -- then I'll vacate the hearing.
09:50:51
But this
has gone on for too long and I do believe it would be quite
FR
23
09:50:16
FO
10
22
09:49:58
24
prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff -- plaintiff
25
class in light of the extensive time I have given and in light
09:51:08
42
of, in fairness, my reading of the Ninth Circuit's opinion,
which is that this only has to do with naming the correct party
and doesn't have to do with a difference of rights as it
relates to that party at all.
hearing.
GB
OW
.C
OM
We're going to proceed with this
So I appreciate your position, Mr. Walker.
As I've
indicated, the hearing is only beginning today and I'll let you
make up whatever you have to make up to make sure that the
County's interests are represented.

MR. WALKER:
11
In light of your ruling, may I have a continuing

objection so that -THE COURT:
14
MR. WALKER:
15
THE COURT:
You may have a continuing objection.
TH
E
13
Thank you.
Ms. Iafrate, you may also have a
continuing objection.
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
could.
22
24
25
Anything else that we need to
Your Honor, just one question, if I
09:52:01
I'm trying to define what role the special limited
counsel have in this case, whether we participate, whether we

cross-examine, or whether our issues don't come until the end
FR
23
Okay.
MR. McDONALD:
21
09:51:50
ND
raise?
IE
20
OF
16
19
09:51:41
FO
10
12
09:51:27
of the case when the other issues come up.

THE COURT:
Well, let me just say this, Mr. McDonald.
09:52:19
43
I'm not going to allow you generally to participate, but it
does seem to me that you do have a role that may go during the
course of this hearing.
role at the end.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Again, you will have an appropriate
But it also seems to me that if, for example, and I'm
not trying to forecast anything, if you have Fifth Amendment
concerns, I'm going to allow you to be heard on those in this
hearing.
in this hearing as it may relate to any later hearing for
To the extent that you are representing your client
criminal contempt or other criminal liability, I'm certainly
11
going to allow you to represent his interests in that limited
12
respect.
Does that help clarify your question?
14
MR. McDONALD:
TH
E
13
I'm sorry.
It would not -- for
example, hypothetically, if the sheriff were on the witness
16
stand and I felt there were areas that I wanted to bring out,
17
this would not be the time to do that?
OF
15
That's correct.
Unless and until it
20
example a Fifth Amendment assertion or anything else that --
21
and I'm not saying that the sheriff will make that, but it
09:53:25
IE
ND
relates to your concern about, for example, I offer as an
seems to me in light of the fact that I have raised the

possibility that the appropriate remedy might be criminal, he
FR
23
09:53:07
THE COURT:
19
22
09:52:54
FO
10
18
09:52:34
24
certainly -- you certainly have an interest in representing him
25
in that respect and I will allow you to be heard --
09:53:40
MR. McDONALD:
THE COURT:
And the same goes, Mr. Birnbaum, all the rest of you
44
Thank you.
GB
OW
.C
OM
-- as it relates to those matters.
who entered special appearances.
Mr. Stein, the same goes to
you.
this hearing, but to the extent that it relates to any
invocation of Fifth Amendment or other rights that you believe
your client -- that relate to criminal proceedings or
criminal -- or criminal matters, or -- and I don't mean to be
I'm not going to generally allow you to participate in
pejorative in that -- matters in which you believe their rights
11
need to be protected as against any sort of a future criminal
12
contempt hearing, I will allow you to be heard.

Anything else that needs to be clarified?
14
MR. COMO:
TH
E
13
Your Honor, I would like to have some
guidance from the Court as to the scope of the next four days
16
in terms of whether we're really just looking at whether these
17
individuals should be held in contempt or whether we're also
18
looking at potential civil remedies.
MR. COMO:
FR
23
24
25
We're definitely looking at potential
civil remedies.
IE
22
THE COURT:
ND
19
21
09:54:38
OF
15
20
09:54:17
FO
10
09:53:57
09:54:55
Within these four days.
THE COURT:
Yes.
MR. COMO:
Okay.
THE COURT:
That's all.
Within the next four days and within
anything else that we schedule in the interim or thereafter.
09:55:02
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
Ms. Wang, were you going to make some sort of an
opening statement?
MS. WANG:
Okay.
All right.
GB
OW
.C
OM
No, Your Honor.
My intent, as I noted
yesterday, was that plaintiffs wanted to clarify the scope of
evidence that we intend to put on.
already done that and made clear what the scope of today's
hearing is and the next three days.
I think Your Honor has
We would say that the overarching issue on which
plaintiffs intend to put on evidence is how to bring Sheriff
12
Arpaio and this agency into compliance with the Court's orders
13
and the proper remedies for doing so, and I'll leave it at
14
that.
TH
E
11
THE COURT:
All right.
16
Ms. Iafrate?
17
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
15
Your Honor, Sheriff Arpaio and the named
19
to be within the Court's order.
20
the newest ones but there are some newer at my table.
21
of a lack of communication, organization, and misinformation
25
I'm one of
09:55:59
IE
Because
that was provided to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, I

continue to acknowledge that exists.
FR
24
We're here today.
ND
contemnors -- I'm not going to list them all -- also would like
23
09:55:25
09:55:40
18
22
09:55:13
FO
10
45
When we work through issues with the monitors they
continue to have some frustration regarding that.
It's a
09:56:18
46
culture that we are attempting to fix with the monitor's
assistance so that we can remedy these deficiencies that were
not on purpose.
negligent areas that need to be fixed.
Chief Deputy Sheridan as well as the others at Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office are committed to fix these deficiencies and
move forward.
GB
OW
.C
OM
They were not willful.
THE COURT:
Mr. Como?
10
MR. COMO:
Thank you.
They were -- they were
And Sheriff Arpaio and
Chief Sands, I'd just like to say that we're ready to proceed,
12
that he's volunteered -- that he's cooperated completely, and
13
that we will put on evidence to show that he took reasonable
14
steps to comply with your December 23, 2011, order.
TH
E
11
THE COURT:
16
Ms. Wang, first witness.
17
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, plaintiffs call David Trombi.
18
THE CLERK:
State your whole name for the record and
22
24
25
09:57:15
THE WITNESS:
THE CLERK:
FR
23
ND
21
Thank you.
spell your last name.
IE
20
All right.
OF
15
19
09:56:55
FO
Your Honor, on behalf of former
09:56:43
David Trombi.
T-r-o-m-b-i.
Raise your right hand.
09:58:16
Trombi - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15
47
DAVID TROMBI,
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
GB
OW
.C
OM
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
the MCSO?
A.
I am the chief of enforcement.
Q.
Is that called "chief deputy" for my --
10
A.
No, sir.
11
Q.
Is it deputy chief?
12
A.
It isn't, it's chief.
13
have what they term executive chiefs, and then you have the one
14
and only chief deputy.
15
Q.
And your domain is operations command, is that correct?
16
A.
Sworn operations, yes.
17
Q.
And that's basically the patrol function within MCSO, is
18
that fair to say?
19
A.
20
side of the house, if you will.
21
Q.
09:58:56
FO
There's only one chief deputy.
09:59:11
OF
TH
E
So you have deputy chiefs, then you
ND
Patrol, all of the investigations, everything on the sworn

09:59:27
Pretty much everything in MCSO other than custody and
detention, is that right?

A.
And administration, yes.
24
Q.
I'm going to start by talking about your role beginning in
25
early 2014 in gathering of video cameras and the resulting
FR
23
What is your present position at
IE
22
Good morning, Mr. Trombi.
09:59:42
tapes at the MCSO beginning of February of 2014.
What position were you in in February of 2014?
GB
OW
.C
OM
48
A.
I believe then I was chief of Patrol.
Q.
That's not the position you are in now.
A.
Correct.
Q.
And then the Human Smuggling Unit was one of those that
reported to you in that position as chief of Patrol?
A.
together.
I'm sorry.
It is not.
During that time I'm not sure that that unit was still
Q.
11
Unit report to you when you were Chief of Patrol?
12
A.
I was one of the supervisors, yes.
13
Q.
Well, you were the direct supervisor in line from the Human
14
Smuggling Unit.
15
future.
16
directly to you, is that correct?
17
A.
They could report to me directly, yes.
18
Q.
Sometimes they could skip you and report directly to
19
Mr. Sands, is that -- is that right?
20
A.
21
Q.
10:00:25
TH
E
I will use the term "HSU" for that in the

10:00:39
ND
OF
The lieutenants and the commanders of HSU reported
Yes, sir.
10:00:53
IE
But you were their immediate supervisory level over the
HSU.
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Now, let me show you -- I'd like to put up Exhibit 151.
25
This has been admitted and stipulated to, so --
FR
23
Prior, before it was disbanded, did the Human Smuggling
FO
10
22
10:00:08
10:01:07
MR. POCHODA:
Honor.
5
6
Nothing is admitted till I
admit it, and I haven't admitted anything.
3
4
Guess what?
GB
OW
.C
OM
THE COURT:
That's why I quickly changed, Your
It has been stipulated by the parties for admission.
Do we publish it first, then to you and the witness,

Judge?
THE COURT:
Do you have any objections to the admission of
Yes.
Exhibit 151, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:
11
THE COURT:
12
MR. COMO:
13
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
No, Your Honor.
TH
E
If you want to put together a list of
stipulated exhibits at the break, I'll admit them.
All right?
16
(Exhibit No. 151 is admitted into evidence.)
17
MR. POCHODA:
OF
Exhibit 151 is admitted.
Honor?
THE COURT:
20
BY MR. POCHODA.
21
Q.
It can be published.
10:01:52
Can you see that, Chief Trombi?
A.
Yes, sir, I can.
Q.
And this exhibit has a number of pages.
FR
23
Could we publish to everybody, Your
IE
22
10:01:38
ND
19
10:01:31
Mr. Como?
15
18
10:01:21
FO
10
14
49
At the bottom of
24
each of the page is an e-mail from yourself, is that correct?
25
A.
Yes, sir, that's correct.
10:02:09
50
Q.
And that was sent to various others at the MCSO, right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And you were seeking a count of, as it states here, how
many deputies are presently using recording devices, is that
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You were not seeking the number of deputies that at any
time in the past had used a recording device, were you?
A.
I didn't specify so.
10
Q.
And you were asked to send out this request for information
11
by Chief Sheridan, is that right?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
And you were informed by Chief Sheridan that it was needed
14
by Chief Freeman in order to fulfill the information for a
15
grant that he was seeking, is that right?
TH
E
Objection, Your Honor, leading.
17
MR. POCHODA:
Your Honor, it is my understanding that
OF
MS. IAFRATE:
as we did at trial, that for adverse witnesses we could ask
19
leading questions.
ND
All right.
I'm going to allow some leeway
10:03:07
when it's an MCSO witness.

You are currently with MCSO, as I understand your
testimony.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
22
18
21
10:02:41
10:02:56
16
20
10:02:21
FO
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE COURT:
I'm going to allow some leading.
You
10:03:16
may -- you may do so.
MR. POCHODA:
Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
And I apologize, sir.
repeat the question.
MR. POCHODA:
Yes.
GB
OW
.C
OM
51
If you could
BY MR. POCHODA.
Q.
Chief Sheridan that the information in the e-mail in
Exhibit 151 was needed by Chief Freeman, is that right?
You were informed at that time when requested by
A.
No, sir.
11
Q.
What were you told that information was required for?
12
A.
There had been a conversation in a common area on the 5th
13
floor of the Sheriff's Office headquarters where a governor's
14
Office of Highway Safety grant for body cameras, specifically
15
for our Lake Patrol deputies who were the ones that typically
16
enforce DUI enforcement, was going to be given to us, and there
17
was a realization at that point that we didn't have a policy to
18
address the usage and distributions of those items.
19
that reason, Chief Deputy Sheridan asked me to begin inquiring
20
as to what we currently had out there is the reason he asked.
21
Q.
TH
E
So for
ND
OF
10:04:02
10:04:33
IE
So at that point in time, in February of 2014, there was
no one place where one could look to see the total number of
video cams that deputies at MCSO were using, is that fair to
FR
23
10:03:35
FO
10
22
10:03:24
24
say?
25
A.
Yes, sir, that's fair to say.
10:04:50
52
Q.
And there was no general regulation governing the use of
video cams at the MCSO at that time, is that right?
A.
As I'm aware, yes, correct, there was not.
Q.
And to your knowledge, there was no policy concerning the
retention of any tapes that resulted from the use of those
cams, is that right?
A.
I believe that's correct, sir.
Q.
And if you could take just a look through this Exhibit 151,
to your recollection, does that -- do these responses indicate
GB
OW
.C
OM
the response -- all of the responses that you got for sending
11
out that e-mail on February 19th of 2014?
12
A.
I don't have the ability to --
13
Q.
Oh, that's right.
TH
E
14
15
MR. POCHODA:
slowly?
Thank you.
17
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
16
22
THE COURT:
FR
23
24
25
10:05:45
Your Honor, may the witness be handed
He certainly may.
MR. POCHODA:
IE
21
THE COURT:
ND
19
20
Is there a way to scroll through this
this multipage exhibit so that he could answer the question?
18
10:05:28
FO
10
10:05:03
10:05:53
We should have one.
THE WITNESS:
MS. WANG:
I don't have a clean copy.
Thank you.
Your Honor, may I approach the witness with
a copy?
MR. POCHODA:
He did it.
10:06:32
MS. WANG:
Oh, I beg your pardon.
(Pause in proceedings.)
THE WITNESS:
Okay.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Thank you.
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
all, the e-mail that you sent out in February of 2014
requesting the identification of present users of video cams
and videotapes made from those cams?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
And do those appear to be the responses that you got to
11
that e-mail?
12
A.
Yes, they do.
13
Q.
Chief, I'd like to show you now -- well, before I do, I'd
14
like to turn to May 14th of 2014.
15
on that day when you were asked by Chief Sheridan to send out
16
another e-mail concerning videotapes and cameras, is that
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
And can you describe how you were informed that
20
Chief Sheridan was interested in speaking to you about this?
21
A.
10:07:00
10:07:18
Do you recall at some point

10:07:46
ND
OF
TH
E
FO
Does that appear to be, first of
10:08:02
I was summoned from my office to the sheriff's office,
which is located on the same floor, but I don't recall how or

by what means that occurred.
FR
23
And the question was:
IE
22
53
24
Q.
And what happened when you got to the sheriff's office?
25
A.
I knocked on the closed door.
10:08:23
Q.
And then what?
A.
It opened and I stepped inside.
Q.
And who was present?
A.
Present at that time was Chief Deputy Sheridan, Sheriff
Arpaio, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Casey, and I believe Ms. Stutz.
Q.
Chief Sheridan at that time, is that right?
A.
Yes, sir, correct.
Q.
And what specifically did Chief Sheridan speak to you
GB
OW
.C
OM
11
A.
12
motion on the conference table that he was seated at and said
13
words to the effect of, "I want you to collect all video and
14
get it up to Sergeant Mike Reese in Internal Affairs."
15
Q.
And what else did he say?
16
A.
That was it.
17
Q.
And what did you take, quote, all video, quote, to mean?
18
A.
Just that: all video that was in existence within Patrol
19
and within deputies' use.
20
Q.
21
collected from?
10:08:57
FO
about?
10:09:22
ND
OF
TH
E
As best I can recall, he kind of made a finger-tapping
10:09:41
IE
And did he give you the dates that he wanted that video
A.
Well, no, but by "all" I would assume all.
Q.
You assumed it meant any time in the history of MCSO that a
FR
23
10:08:39
And I believe that the only person who spoke to you was
10
22
54
24
video had been made --
25
A.
Yes.
10:09:56
Q.
-- is that correct?
A.
I'm sorry.
Q.
And did he limit it to any particular subject matter of
video?
A.
hundred percent certain right now.
Q.
that videotapes of a particular vehicle stop incident are
useful tools in assessing whether there were improper actions
Yes, sir.
GB
OW
.C
OM
55
It might have been traffic stops, but I'm not a
And did you -- let me ask you generally, you would agree
by an officer involved in that incident, is that right?
11
A.
In part, yes.
12
Q.
In part.
13
A.
That means a useful tool to confirm or deny allegations
14
made by somebody who's complaining or the conduct of a deputy.
15
Q.
16
camera was on, of what occurred within the range of that
17
camera, is that fair to say?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
And that may help either clear a deputy who's been the
20
subject of a complaint or confirm that there were improper
21
actions, is that right?
TH
E
What does that mean?
10:10:43
10:10:58
IE
ND
OF
It enables you to have a visual record, to the extent the
A.
Yes, it is.
Q.
You would also agree that an officer who had acted
FR
23
10:10:25
FO
10
22
10:10:01
24
improperly during the course of any one of these incidents and
25
vehicle stops would be hesitant from having that video go
10:11:12
public to superior officers, is that right?
2
3
MS. IAFRATE:
Objection, Your Honor.
argumentative.
THE COURT:
Foundation, and
GB
OW
.C
OM
56
Do you want to lay some foundation,
Mr. Pochoda?
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
tape possible, is that right?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
And in your approach to that task, you were aware that some
11
officers might be hesitant to give you all of the tapes that he
12
or she had made during the course of his or her activities at
13
the Sheriff's Office, is that right?
I'm interested in your -- your task was to try to get every
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
sorry.
19
BY MR. POCHODA:
20
Q.
21
question.
I'm
ND
IE
In your approach -- let me backtrack.
Strike that
10:12:08
And once you got the instructions from Chief Sheridan,
you -- what did you see your job as doing with regards to the
FR
23
And the question, again, sir?
10:11:59
18
Objection, Your Honor, foundation.
I'll allow the witness to answer yes or no
OF
to the question.
17
22
10:11:37
FO
TH
E
14
16
10:11:26
24
videotapes that had existed any time within the MCSO?
25
A.
To communicate that to the sworn commanders within the
10:12:25
57
Sheriff's Office.
Q.
number of tapes that were in fact collected?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And in figuring out how to maximize the number of tapes,
you were aware that there might be some tapes that demonstrated
improper conduct during an incident or vehicle stop, is that
right?
A.
No.
10
Q.
You thought that no tape could possibly do that?
11
A.
I didn't think that -- I didn't think that, and that wasn't
12
a thought when deciding to send that e-mail to start collecting
13
all video.
14
Q.
15
deputies might well not want the information that a tape
16
revealed to become public through your collection, is that
17
right?
18
A.
That is correct, yes.
19
Q.
So you didn't figure out how to maximize getting such tapes
20
when there's an interest in not having them go public.
21
A.
GB
OW
.C
OM
TH
E
FO
10:12:53
So you didn't take into consideration the fact that some
OF
10:13:12
ND
Q.
10:13:25
Correct.
And did Chief Sheridan in any way indicate to you how to --
what steps to take in order to maximize the receipt of all
FR
23
10:12:40
IE
22
And was your understanding that you were to maximize the
24
tapes that had been made?
25
A.
He did not.
10:13:41
58
Q.
was no central registry of all tapes that had been made via
cams during traffic stops, is that right?
A.
Not that I was aware of, correct.
Q.
And you would agree, then, that if an officer chose to not
provide a tape that he or she had in his possession, there was
no way of knowing that that tape had ever existed.
A.
Correct.
Q.
If we could look at -- I do have a copy -- Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 38.
11
MR. POCHODA:
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. POCHODA:
14
MR. COMO:
exhibits.
Are you going to move to admit Exhibit 38?
MR. POCHODA:
18
THE COURT:
S
ND
Okay.
Your Honor --
10:14:56
We're going to show him Exhibit 38 and not
what you're going to represent is Exhibit 38.
FR
23
MS. IAFRATE:
IE
22
Then can I show it to him?
You may show it to the witness only.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
10:14:41
Then I'm not going to let you admit it.
OF
17
21
This has also been stipulated to.
I don't know what he's referring to.

THE COURT:
20
Yes.
Your Honor, we haven't stipulated to any
16
19
10:14:26
Your Honor, may I --
TH
E
15
10:14:01
FO
10
And as you said, even at this point in time in 2014, there
GB
OW
.C
OM
Nick, will you please give the witness Exhibit 38?
24
Yes, Ms. Iafrate.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
That was my concern.
Thank you.
10:15:10
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
Have you had a chance to review this, Chief?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And is this the e-mail that you referred to a little bit
ago that you sent out in response to Chief Sheridan's request
on May 14th, 2014?
A.
Yes, sir, it is.

MR. POCHODA:
I'd move this be admitted into evidence,
Your Honor.
11
THE COURT:
Any objection, Mr. Como?
12
MR. COMO:
No objection, Your Honor.
13
THE COURT:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
16
TH
E
No objection.
10:16:13
OF
BY MR. POCHODA:
18
Q.
19
number of persons that you listed to receive this e-mail, is
20
that right?
21
A.
ND
Chief Trombi, you'll see at the top that there are a
10:16:29
Yes, sir.
IE
Q.
And how did you make the selection as to who would get this
e-mail?
FR
23
10:16:10
Ms. Iafrate?
17
22
10:15:54
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
59
24
A.
I believe that I ensured I got this to every sworn
25
commander and his or her second in command or lieutenant.
10:16:47
60
Q.
And again, if we look at the body of this e-mail, you start
off by referring to your earlier e-mail that we have introduced
as Exhibit 151, is that correct, that several weeks we
collected information from your districts and divisions?
Is that referring to the earlier e-mail we just
GB
OW
.C
OM
discussed?
A.
Yes, sir, it is.
Q.
And as indicated, that earlier e-mail was talking about
present cameras, present video cams, is that right?

A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Now, and when it says in the second line here were
12
utilized -- how many video cameras were utilized in your normal
13
Patrol functions, what does that mean, "normal Patrol
14
functions"?
15
A.
16
the road in Patrol.
17
Q.
18
vehicles, is that correct?
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
21
differently in this e-mail on May 14th in 2014 as compared to
TH
E
OF
10:17:58
And at the MCSO, the patrols are done by deputies in
And so what is different and what were you asking for
10:18:13
the e-mail sent out in February of 2014?

A.
FR
23
That's a generalization of what deputies are doing out on
IE
22
10:17:39
FO
10
ND
10:17:24
The February e-mail was in an effort to identify how many
24
cameras existed.
This e-mail specifically asked that all the
25
video from those cameras be gathered, collected, and sent to
10:18:43
61
lieutenant -- I'm sorry -- Sergeant Reese, and that all video,
in bold words, is to be preserved.
Q.
at earlier years, 2008, 2009, that might no longer be in use in
2014, is that correct?
A.
That was possible, yes.
Q.
So that this e-mail would not have gotten videotapes made
by those cameras, is that right?
A.
GB
OW
.C
OM
You would agree that there were video cams that were used
I don't know what videos were collected as a result of this
e-mail.
11
Q.
12
discuss with anybody -- Chief Sheridan, the monitor, anybody --
13
what language should be used to maximize the collection of
14
existing videotapes?
15
A.
No, sir, I did not.
16
Q.
Chief, if we could turn to an earlier period before your
17
present promotion and when you had the direct supervisory role
18
over the HSU, one of the deputies in HSU was Deputy Charley
19
Armendariz, is that correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
10:20:08
ND
OF
TH
E
And again, in doing -- composing this e-mail, did you
Yes, it -- he was, yes.
10:20:52
IE
And before Mr. Armendariz's unfortunate death, had you had
occasion to meet with him while he was at HSU?

A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Did you ever work with him on any particular stops,
25
incidents, or projects?
FR
23
10:19:38
FO
10
22
10:19:21
10:21:09
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And while you worked on the first supervisory level over
HSU, the first lieutenant that you worked with was Lieutenant
Sousa as the commander of HSU, is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And then you worked with Lieutenant Jakowinicz when he
replaced Lieutenant Sousa in 2012, is that right?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
At some point you were made aware of numerous complaints
GB
OW
.C
OM
62
against Deputy Armendariz from civilians based on his practices
11
during vehicle stops, is that right?
12
A.
Based on his behavior, yes.
13
Q.
And you were made aware of that by information presented to
14
you both by Lieutenant Jakowinicz and by Sergeant Trowbridge,
15
is that right?
16
A.
And Lieutenant Sousa.
17
Q.
And Lieutenant Sousa prior.
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Do you recall when Lieutenant Sousa first informed you of
20
concerns about the behaviors of Deputy Armendariz while at HSU?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
10:22:17
Many years ago, but I don't -- I don't have a good
time frame to be able to say.

Q.
FR
23
10:22:02
IE
22
10:21:41
FO
10
10:21:27
And in what form did he pass on information of
24
Mr. Armendariz to you?
25
A.
He expressed to me that he had a complaint that had been
10:22:37
63
brought to him by a female motorist who alleged mistreatment, I
believe, in general terms, with regards to a traffic stop that
she was involved in where Deputy Armendariz was the deputy who
stopped her.
Q.
And he reported this orally to you?
A.
I believe he called me, but, yes -- I'm sorry.
orally.
Q.
lieutenant at HSU, report any other examples of concern about
I'm sorry.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Yes.
An -- yes,
And did Lieutenant Sousa, during the period when he was a
Mr. Armendariz?
11
A.
12
complained -- I don't think that came through Lieutenant Sousa,
13
so my answer would be no to that one.
14
Q.
Who would have told you about that second incident?
15
A.
That may have come up through Deputy Chief MacIntyre.
16
Q.
And what was the complaint, if you recall?
17
A.
It was involving a state legislator who was en route to
18
session who had been stopped for speeding by Deputy Armendariz.
19
Q.
20
Mr. Armendariz during those reported incidents?
21
A.
I'm sorry.
10:23:42
OF
TH
E
There was another incident involving a motorist who
ND
And what steps did you take to check the behavior of

10:24:15
IE
I reviewed the video that had been captured by Deputy
Armendariz.
Q.
FR
23
10:23:20
FO
10
22
10:23:03
You were aware that Deputy Armendariz was utilizing a cam
24
in his patrol car, is that right?
25
A.
At those points, yes.
10:24:31
64
Q.
Do you recall what years these incidents took place?
A.
I do not, sir.
Q.
Lieutenant Sousa was still the commander at HSU?
A.
He -- he definitely was for the female motorist.
hundred percent certain on the other issue I mentioned.
Q.
these two incidents?
A.
it was Lieutenant Sousa who came to my office with the DVD and
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm not a
And who else was with you when you reviewed the tapes of
The first incident regarding the female motorist I believe
viewed it with me.
11
Q.
Anyone else?
12
A.
Not that I recall.
13
Q.
And that complaint was resolved, again, with the attorney
14
for the woman driver, is that correct?
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
And Deputy Chief MacIntyre was involved in resolving that
17
complaint for the MCSO, is that right?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And the second incident involved a stop of -- or involved,
20
yeah, a stop of an Arizona legislator, is that right?
21
A.
TH
E
ND
OF
10:25:23
10:25:41
Yes, sir.
IE
Q.
And Deputy Chief MacIntyre was involved in resolving that
complaint as well for the MCSO?
FR
23
10:25:07
FO
10
22
10:24:48
24
A.
I believe he was to some degree, yes.
25
Q.
You knew he was involved in some manner.
10:25:59
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Had you, in your years of -- when you had supervisory
authority over the HSU, reviewed any other tapes of
Mr. Armendariz?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When was that?
A.
That was shortly before May 14th of 2014.
Q.
Now, let me -- let me withdraw that.
were in the supervisory role over HSU, which ended prior to
GB
OW
.C
OM
11
A.
12
apologize.
13
Q.
14
position over HSU.
15
disbanded.
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
Prior to HSU disbanding, had you reviewed any other tapes
18
other than the two we just spoke about concerning Deputy
19
Armendariz?
20
A.
21
Q.
I thought I heard two questions in there.
10:26:37
TH
E
I was interested in while you were in a supervisory

That ended prior to 2014 because HSU was
10:26:52
ND
OF
Is that right?
No, sir, not that I recall.
10:27:02
IE
And you reviewed those two because there was specific
complaints made about Deputy Armendariz, is that right?

A.
Yes.
24
Q.
You didn't review any of his tapes just to check his
25
performance as a deputy within HSU.
FR
23
FO
22
10:26:19
I meant while you
10
I'm sorry.
65
10:27:14
A.
I did not, correct.
Q.
And you did not review the tapes of any other deputies
while you were in a supervisory role over HSU about their
performance at HSU.
A.
Correct.
Q.
And you did not do that even when some complaints came in
about HSU deputies, is that right?
I withdraw that question.
At some point there were e-mails sent to you from
GB
OW
.C
OM
66
Lieutenant Jakowinicz about his concerns of the performance of
11
Deputy Armendariz, is that correct?
12
A.
13
not sure.
14
Q.
FO
10
Okay.
15
Let me --
MR. POCHODA:
If the witness can be shown Plaintiffs'
Exhibit 118, please.
17
BY MR. POCHODA:
18
Q.
19
2-21-13 from Lieutenant Jakowinicz.
20
A.
21
Q.
Do you see that?
ND
Chief, if you could take a look at that, it's a memo dated
Yes, sir, I do.
10:29:05
And that was directed to you, is that correct?
IE
A.
FR
23
10:28:19
OF
16
22
10:28:00
I'm
TH
E
I don't know if it was an e-mail or a conversation.
10:27:27
Yes, it is.
MR. POCHODA:
I would move this into admission.
24
THE COURT:
Any objection?
25
MR. COMO:
No, Your Honor.
10:29:21
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
67
No, Your Honor.
GB
OW
.C
OM
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
fourth line down, the third line down to the end of that line,
it says, "After reading the attached memo from Sergeant
Trowbridge"?
And if you'd just take a look at this document, on the
9
A.
Yes, I do.
11
MR. POCHODA:
If the witness can be shown Exhibit 133,
please.
13
BY MR. POCHODA:
14
Q.
15
Lieutenant Jakowinicz?
16
A.
Lieutenant Jakowinicz, yes, sir.
17
Q.
And was that the -- did you see that as the attachment to
18
the e-mail we discussed --
19
A.
20
Q.
21
discussed, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 118?
You see that's a memo from Sergeant Trowbridge to
OF
10:30:41
Could you repeat the question?
ND
I'm sorry, sir.
Had you seen this as the attachment to the e-mail we
10:30:53
IE
A.
118 is -- I'm sorry, I don't mean to equivocate on the
matter -- is a memo, not an e-mail --
FR
23
TH
E
12
22
10:29:45
FO
10
Do you see that?
10:29:32
24
Q.
I apologize.
25
A.
-- just for clarification.
10:31:10
68
Q.
gotten the attached memo from Sergeant Trowbridge that we
talked about.
A.
Sir, I'm sorry.
Q.
Lines 3 and 4 of Exhibit 118.
A.
Okay.
Q.
See the end of line 3, "After reading the attached memo
from Sergeant Trowbridge"?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
And I'm asking you now:
11
Exhibit 133, that I've just handed you, or has been handed to
12
you?
13
A.
I don't specifically recall.
14
Q.
Is it possible it was the attached memo that the lieutenant
15
is discussing?
16
A.
It's possible, yes.
17
Q.
The lieutenant was bringing to your attention concerns
18
about the continued presence of Deputy Armendariz at the HSU,
19
is that correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
Are you asking me if --
I'm on 118.
10:31:32
10:31:44
TH
E
FO
Did you get that attached memo,
ND
OF
10:32:07
His continued presence?
10:32:21
Yes.
A.
Yes.
Q.
In fact, the end of that memo, this is Exhibit 118, on the
FR
23
Did you see that?
IE
22
We discussed that Lieutenant Jakowinicz stated that he had
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
bottom, from the lieutenant, states, quote:
"I would like to
25
request that Deputy Armendariz be transferred to an assignment
10:32:36
more suited to him."
Do you see that?
GB
OW
.C
OM
69
A.
Yes, sir, I do.
Q.
And that memo goes through some of his reasons, the
lieutenant's reasons, for thinking that it was an inappropriate
assignment to maintain Deputy Armendariz at the HSU, is that
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And Sergeant Trowbridge, in his two-page memo, also sets
out a number of concerns about Deputy Armendariz, is that
11
right?
12
exhibit is in evidence that he is quoting.
14
15
THE COURT:
in evidence.
MR. POCHODA:
ND
MS. IAFRATE:
20
THE COURT:
Foundation, Your Honor.
Sustained.
10:33:28
IE
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
If you'd take a look at what's been given to you as
Plaintiffs' 133, you indicated before that you may have read
FR
23
I would like to move
No objection.
MR. COMO:
19
22
That's correct.
10:33:16
now the entry of Plaintiffs' 133 into evidence.
18
21
He's not quoting the exhibit, but it isn't
OF
16
17
Your Honor, I do not believe that that
TH
E
13
MS. IAFRATE:
10:33:04
FO
10
10:32:48
24
this, is that correct?
25
A.
I may have, yes.
10:33:48
MR. POCHODA:
I would move it into evidence, Your
MS. IAFRATE:
Foundation, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Honor.
Sustained.
GB
OW
.C
OM
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
concerns about the performance of Deputy Armendariz, is that
right?
A.
Yes.
You know, Mr. Pochoda, we need to take a
FO
THE COURT:
morning break.
We took a long time discussing business.
12
just looking for a good point that won't interrupt your
13
examination too much.
14
MR. POCHODA:
15
THE COURT:
TH
E
11
All right.
I'll
10:34:20
MR. WALKER:
Are we ready to resume?

Your Honor, before we proceed, may I be
ND
19
heard briefly?
10:51:57
IE
Before we proceed may I be heard briefly?

Because of my late entry into the case I haven't seen
most of these trial exhibits, and I'm not really in a position
FR
23
We'll take 15 minutes.
OF
THE COURT:
18
22
I'm
see the parties back here in 15 minutes.

(Recess taken.)
21
10:34:08
This is as good as any.
17
20
10:33:58
You were aware that Sergeant Trowbridge had significant
10
16
70
24
intelligently to say whether I object to or not.
So in
25
addition to my continuing objection, I wonder if the Court
10:52:06
would allow me a continuing reservation of right to object
after I become familiar with the documents?
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to direct you to provide the
documents to Mr. Walker.
an objection on the record if you wish to do so at the time.
71
You can look at them, stand and state
I believe I have ruled that, as I understand the Ninth
Circuit's opinion, Ms. Iafrate has adequately and does now
represent the interests of the County.
here as a separate party, because you may wish to assert some
The fact that you're
sort of a defense I'm going to allow you to do whatever I've
11
said, so I'll allow you to look at the exhibits.
12
As you have looked at any of the exhibits that have

been admitted so far, do you have any objections to make to any
14
of them?
TH
E
13
15
MR. WALKER:
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. IAFRATE:
22
24
25
10:52:58
OF
All right.
My apologies, Your Honor.
Based on
S
ND
You've already reserved your objection and
I think I -- I think I only restated what I said before.

MS. IAFRATE:
10:53:06
I believe that there has just been a
distinction.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
No.
something you just said, may I be heard?
19
20
10:52:46
FO
10
18
10:52:30
THE COURT:
All right.
MS. IAFRATE:
Go ahead.
You said I represent the interests of
the County, which I've not been retained to represent the
10:53:16
County.
That's Mr. Walker.

THE COURT:
I understand at this point that's true,
GB
OW
.C
OM
72
but up until now you have been representing functionally the
same interests, according to my understanding of their opinion,
and so I appreciate you for making the correction.
on, Mr. Walker's representing the interests of the County, I
presume, if you want to make that distinction.
there is a functional difference, as I've indicated from based
on the Ninth Circuit's opinion, but to the extent there is,

Mr. Walker is representing that difference.
11
that.
I'm not sure
I'll acknowledge
12
Thank you for the correction.
13
MR. WALKER:
14
THE COURT:
15
So, Mr. Walker, you don't have any objection to the
TH
E
All right.
18
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
Or that I've admitted to date.
MR. WALKER:
From now on, I think it will save a great deal of time
ND
19
if we can review all the exhibits with all the parties, and if
21
you've got stipulations, I'll take them at noon.
FR
IE
20
23
10:53:53
exhibits that I've introduced to date.
17
22
10:53:45
OF
16
10:53:31
FO
10
From now
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
10:54:03
Okay?
Thank you.
If, in fact, Mr. Walker, it would help you
24
to have the lunch hour, I'll have them give you the exhibits
25
and you can look at them over the lunch hour.
10:54:17
MR. WALKER:
I'd appreciate that, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
MR. POCHODA:
Mr. Pochoda.
Thank you.
GB
OW
.C
OM
73
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
which is the e-mail to you from defendant Jakowinicz.
memo.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
He starts off in the memo by saying the purpose is to make
Chief Trombi, if we could look back at Exhibit No. 118,
I apologize.
The
you, Chief Trombi, aware of a pattern of documented complaints
11
that has persisted since May 2011 on Deputy Armendariz,
12
Number 1764.
TH
E
Do you see that?

A.
Yes, I do.
15
Q.
And you were aware even prior to getting this memo that
16
Mr. Armendariz had been the subject of a number of complaints
17
by persons he had stopped.
18
A.
I don't --
19
Q.
Is this the first time you had heard that?
20
A.
21
definitively say that there were some prior.
10:54:57
ND
Is that fair to say?
I don't believe so, based on the date here, but I can't
10:55:19
IE
Q.
Well, you were aware that he was the subject of more than
10 complaints, is that right?
FR
23
OF
14
22
10:54:45
FO
10
13
10:54:27
24
A.
Over a period of time, yes, sir.
25
Q.
And that was an unusually high number than any other HSU
10:55:35
74
deputy, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And in reviewing the two videotapes that you had for two of
the complaints you found that he had exhibited improper conduct
during those incidents, isn't that right?
A.
No.
Q.
In reviewing either of them did you find that he exhibited
improper conduct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Which one was that?
11
A.
The state legislator.
12
Q.
And what was the improper conduct in that?
13
A.
That the legislator made himself known that he was en route
14
to session and as a result Deputy Armendariz still detained
15
him.
16
Q.
17
that correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And you saw that Deputy Armendariz had, in fact, pulled his
20
gun during that incident, is that right?
21
A.
TH
E
FO
10:56:03
10:56:19
ND
OF
And you saw the tape about the stop of the woman driver, is
Q.
No, sir.
10:56:31
No, sir.
You did not observe that he had pulled his gun during that
incident?
FR
23
10:55:54
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
I may be mixing it up with a later -- okay.
25
So that one you didn't observe any improper behavior.
10:56:44
A.
Correct.
Q.
What did you do to investigate the other number of
complaints about his improper behavior during vehicle stops?
A.
lieutenants to conduct investigations.
Q.
Sergeant Trowbridge, is that right?
A.
At one time Lieutenant Sousa, yes.
Q.
Sousa.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I directed the immediate supervisors, sergeants, and
10:57:18
FO
And this is the response in part of -- this is
11
Exhibit No. 118 from Lieutenant Jakowinicz, is that right?
12
A.
13
investigation.
14
Q.
15
Armendariz, is that right?
16
A.
17
Deputy Armendariz may be receiving complaints.
18
Q.
19
his work at the HSU?
20
A.
21
directing Lieutenant Jakowinicz to remove Deputy Armendariz
TH
E
I do not know that this is the response to that
It discusses his conclusions about the behaviors of Deputy

10:57:35
OF
It discusses in general terms the issues related to why
ND
And at this point in time was Mr. Armendariz suspended from
10:58:02
IE
I'm not sure if this is the one that resulted in me
from his normal functions, to take his take-home vehicle away

from him, to provide Deputy Armendariz a ride to and from work,
FR
23
10:57:07
And his immediate supervisors are Lieutenant Jakowinicz and
10
22
75
24
because we had taken his vehicle from him.
25
Q.
You did that at some point in time?
10:58:36
76
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And why did you do that?
A.
I'm sorry?
Q.
And why did you make that decision?
A.
Because Lieutenant Jakowinicz informed me that Deputy
Armendariz had received, I believe, two or three complaints in
a very short period of time.
Q.
usual path of that would go to some sort of internal review of
GB
OW
.C
OM
Now, when an officer received complaints, would not the
the MCSO?
11
A.
Then?
12
Q.
Why not then?
13
A.
Because what we would do at those times was conduct
14
administrative inquiries to determine if there was any
15
wrongdoing.
16
Q.
17
aside these two that you reviewed the tapes, there was a
18
conclusion of the administrative review that there was no
19
wrongdoing?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
No.
10:59:18
ND
OF
And do you recall in each of these other incidents, leaving
I don't recall what the conclusions of those were.
10:59:28
IE
If there's a conclusion of some wrongdoing, does it then
get transferred over to some type of Internal Affairs

investigation?
FR
23
10:59:04
FO
10
22
10:58:43
24
A.
Back at that time it may have, yes.
25
Q.
Do you recall any Internal Affairs investigations
10:59:38
concerning Mr. Armendariz based on these numerous complaints
that he received?
A.
I don't, but I don't know that there wasn't one.
Q.
Well, if there was one, you would be aware of it as the
supervisor over HSU, is that correct?
A.
At some point I could have been made aware of that, yes.
Q.
Internal Affairs would generally let you know that one of
the deputies in the unit you were supervising was at least a
target, a principal in an Internal Affairs investigation, is
GB
OW
.C
OM
77
that fair to say?
11
A.
At that time, no, it's possible that they would not have.
12
Q.
Would you want to know if you're the supervisor of a
13
particular unit that a deputy in that unit was being
14
investigated for potential wrongdoing?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Just to confirm, at that point in time -- I'm talking about
17
2012 and 2013 -- you've stated, I believe, that you did not
18
review any other tapes of Deputy Armendariz other than the two
19
we have discussed, is that right?
20
A.
21
those were the only two videos that I reviewed.
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
I don't know if I specified those dates, but I did say that
11:01:03
Well, those are the only two videos you reviewed of Deputy
Armendariz while you were in a supervisor position over the
FR
23
11:00:32
IE
22
11:00:15
FO
10
10:59:55
24
HSU, is that correct?
25
A.
Yes, sir.
11:01:18
78
Q.
And you were -- once you got this information from the
lieutenant and Sergeant Trowbridge, you were tasked to
determine whether Mr. Armendariz would remain an HSU deputy, is
that fair to say?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What other aspects of Mr. Armendariz' performance, and as
an HSU deputy, did you review in making that determination in
addition to the two tapes?
A.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I took into consideration the fact that the investigations
that had been conducted were primarily unfounded in most cases.
11
Q.
Which investigations are you talking about now?
12
A.
The two that -- the two video -- well, the one video that I
13
mentioned with regards to the female motorist who was stopped,
14
and then my recollection is that the other administrative
15
investigations that were conducted by Lieutenant Jakowinicz, if
16
I recall correctly, and I'm not a hundred percent, were also
17
unfounded.
18
Q.
19
conduct on one of those two incidents, is that right?
20
A.
21
Q.
24
25
TH
E
OF
11:02:29
ND
So you indicated to us that you thought there was improper
With regards to the legislator, yes, sir.
11:02:47
IE
Of those two incidents that you reviewed via tape, you
found that one demonstrated improper conduct by Mr. Armendariz

and one did not, is that right?
FR
23
11:02:03
FO
10
22
11:01:34
A.
Correct.
I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to cut you off.
Correct.
11:03:07
79
Q.
Did you review any other aspect of Mr. Armendariz's
performance as an HSU deputy, including the manner in which he
collected and logged in evidence?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
You didn't take a look at any manner, the way he handled
evidence, or any -- or -- let me strike that.
GB
OW
.C
OM
For any of the HSU deputies while you were a
supervisor over the HSU, did you review their manner of
handling evidence items?

A.
No, sir.
11
Q.
And for Mr. Armendariz you did not review the incident
12
reports of his vehicle stops to see what evidence he had seized
13
in any one incident from the persons he had stopped?
14
A.
I did not, no.
15
Q.
So you had no idea what items of evidence, whether it's
16
license plates or forms of identification, Mr. Armendariz as a
17
normal course had taken from the persons he had stopped, is
18
that right?
TH
E
argumentative.
THE COURT:
11:04:16
I'll sustain it based on asked and
answered.
BY MR. POCHODA:
FR
23
Objection, Your Honor, leading and
IE
22
11:04:02
OF
MS. IAFRATE:
ND
19
21
11:03:40
FO
10
20
11:03:24
24
Q.
In any event, with Mr. Armendariz, did you ever check in
25
his -- as you evaluated his performance as an HSU deputy to see
11:04:28
80
whether for any incident he had logged in the evidence that he
had seized in a timely manner as required to the evidence and
property rooms?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And you didn't do that for any HSU deputy while you were in
the supervisory position over HSU, did you?
A.
I did not.
Q.
And you do not know how many, for example, HSU deputies in
fact kept items of evidence in their desks?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
I don't know that they did.
11
Q.
You don't know one way or the other, do you?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
And you don't know how many HSU deputies during the period
14
when you had supervision over HSU took items of evidence home,
15
did you?
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
And you don't know how many did or did not, did you?
18
A.
No, sir.
19
Q.
You never put out any instruction while you were in that
20
position to timely log evidence and not take it home, did you?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
11:05:26
I don't believe I did, no.

And you were not aware when you were in that supervisory
position -- strike that.
FR
23
11:05:17
IE
22
11:05:04
FO
10
11:04:44
Did you, while you were in that position, instruct HSU
personnel and deputies about how to maintain or utilize
11:05:47
videotapes?
A.
No, sir.
Q.
And you were not aware when you were in that supervisory
position if there was -- that there was any retention period
for videotapes made by HSU deputies?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So it's possible that a tape made by an HSU deputy via a
cam during a traffic stop in 2008 would no longer exist past
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
I wouldn't know one way or the other.
11
Q.
"Is it possible?" was the question.
12
A.
Sure, it's possible, yes.
13
Q.
Because there's no requirement that they maintain those
14
tapes, was there?
15
A.
Say again?
16
Q.
There's no requirement that they maintain those tapes for
17
any period of time, was there?
18
A.
I'm not aware of any policy defining such.
19
Q.
And you did not put out any instruction that the tapes
20
should be maintained for any particular period, did you?
21
A.
11:06:21
TH
E
ND
OF
11:06:31
11:06:41
I did not.
IE
Q.
And you did not know how many of the deputies at that point
while you were in the supervisory position in fact timely
FR
23
11:06:00
FO
10
22
81
24
logged in their tapes into evidence as opposed to keeping them
25
in their desks or taking them home, did you?
11:07:03
82
A.
No.
Q.
So that as you attempted, and others at the MCSO, to
collect tapes now, not a little while ago but more recently,
once those numbers came in there would be no way for you to
assess whether -- let's sort of use an example.
got a thousand videotapes as a result of the e-mails.
would not know by that number whether that represented
90 percent of the tapes made by HSU deputies while you were the
supervisor or 30 percent, would you?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Let's say you

You
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
You would not know that.
12
A.
I would not.
13
Q.
And as we sit here today, do you recall any point in time
14
when any member of the HSU was in fact subjected to an Internal
15
Affairs investigation because of his or her behaviors or
16
performance while you were the supervisor?
17
A.
There may have been, but I -- I don't recall.
18
Q.
Are you familiar with what triggers Internal Affairs
19
investigations, what behaviors or allegations or charges
20
trigger Internal Affairs investigations within the MCSO?
21
A.
TH
E
ND
OF
11:08:19
I apologize, sir.
11:08:43
Could you repeat the question?
IE
Q.
Are you aware of what criteria there are for starting an IA
investigation?
FR
23
11:07:58
FO
10
22
11:07:39
24
A.
Allegations of misconduct.
25
Q.
Let me ask you, in 2009 at an earlier point you were found
11:08:57
83
to be in civil contempt by Judge Donahoe in state court, is
that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you stated publicly that -- you said that was a
political decision and you would appeal it, is that right?
A.
I believe so.
Q.
And that civil contempt was upheld on appeal, is that
right?
A.
I -- I don't believe it was.
10
Q.
Well, the civil contempt was upheld, some of the remedy was
11
changed, isn't that fair to say?
12
A.
13
appeal process, but something to that effect, I believe.
14
Q.
15
proper civil contempt remedies, isn't that right?
FO
11:09:23
TH
E
Some of the moneys the appellate court found were not
17
THE COURT:
18
THE WITNESS:
OF
MS. IAFRATE:
11:09:41
I'm going to allow it.

I'm
And the question, again, sir?
sorry.
20
BY MR. POCHODA:
21
Q.
ND
19
11:09:50
IE
Some of the moneys that was required to be paid, the state
appeals court found was not a proper civil contempt remedy, is

that right?
FR
23
11:09:11
I'm not -- I'm not sure as to exactly what came out of the
16
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
25
was.
Again, I'm not sure what the final outcome of that appeal
11:09:59
Q.
In any event, they -- the occasion of you being
found in civil contempt by the state court judge and making a
public statement about it did not occasion an IA investigation,
did it?
A.
I don't believe I was subject to one, no.
Q.
Were you surprised that you weren't subjected to an
Internal Affairs investigation given the seriousness of that
action by the state court judge?
A.
No.
MR. POCHODA:
If we could show the witness
Exhibit 119.
12
BY MR. POCHODA:
13
Q.
Have you seen this before?
14
A.
Yes, sir, I have.
15
Q.
This is a memo from yourself?
16
A.
It is.
17
Q.
Concerning Deputy Armendariz, is that right?
18
A.
Yes.
22
11:10:41
OF
11:11:07
I would move it into evidence, Your
Honor.
11:11:18
THE COURT:
FR
23
ND
21
MR. POCHODA:
IE
20
TH
E
11
19
11:10:12
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
Okay.
84
MR. COMO:
Any objection, Mr. Como?
THE COURT:
None, Your Honor.
24
MR. WALKER:
25
THE COURT:
Mr. Walker?
Ms. Iafrate?
11:11:23
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
85
No, Your Honor.
GB
OW
.C
OM
If it could be published, Your Honor.
Yes.
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
you had decided to maintain or reinstate, I'm not sure which it
was at the time, but maintain Deputy Armendariz as a fully
Chief Trombi, this was your memo where you indicated that
functioning member of the HSU, is that right?
11
A.
In part, yes.
12
Q.
What's the other part?
13
A.
The other part is the fact that I spent an hour and 20
14
minutes, I believe, with him discussing the issues and making
15
him aware of the fact that he's received an inordinate amount
16
of complaints and that he needed to change what I believed to
17
be some of his nonverbal communication that was causing these
18
issues.
19
Q.
20
lieutenants had also met with Deputy Armendariz on numerous
21
occasions, is that correct?
TH
E
OF
11:12:09
11:12:26
IE
ND
And you were aware that both Sergeant Trowbridge and the
A.
I believe they had.
Q.
And they were not satisfied with the responses from
FR
23
11:11:55
FO
10
22
11:11:32
24
Mr. Armendariz nor felt that he would be a good person to
25
remain at HSU, is that right?
11:12:40
86
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
And the only additional information you had that they
didn't have was your review of these two videotapes we
discussed, is that correct?
A.
I'm sorry.
Q.
The additional information you had about Mr. Armendariz was
the review of the videotapes we had and your discussion with
him for an hour and 20 minutes?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Did you discuss the decision to maintain him as an HSU
11
deputy with anyone else?
12
A.
Lieutenant Jakowinicz.
13
Q.
You reported to Chief Sands at that point in time, is that
14
correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Did you discuss it with Chief Sands?
17
A.
At some point I believe I did.
18
Q.
It's a fairly important decision for the HSU because of the
19
controversial nature of Mr. Armendariz, isn't that right?
20
A.
21
Q.
11:12:56
11:13:17
OF
TH
E
FO
11:13:05
ND
A.
No.
11:13:36
It was not an important decision.

It's -- it's an important decision, but not specifically
because of HSU.
FR
23
Restate the question.
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
Q.
Okay.
To any patrol unit it would be an important decision
25
when someone has been the subject of the number of complaints
11:13:47
87
about how he or she works in that unit to keep him or her
there, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So did you get approval from Chief Sands to keep him there
once you decided to do so before announcing that decision?
A.
I don't believe I did on this one.
Q.
And did you speak to Sheriff Arpaio about this before or
after you made this decision?
A.
No.
10
Q.
You did not think he would have an interest in this
11
particular decision.
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
At some point came your promotion to your present position.
14
When was that?
15
A.
July of 2014.
16
Q.
And that was a decision made by Sheriff Arpaio, is that
17
right?
18
A.
19
yes.
20
Q.
21
decision, is that fair to say?
11:14:38
OF
TH
E
FO
11:14:15
ND
Well, Sheriff Arpaio would have to sign off on that
A.
I don't know that he had to sign off.
Q.
He had to agree with it.
FR
23
11:14:03
I believe by Sheriff Arpaio and maybe the chief deputy,
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
the MCSO, is that right?
25
A.
It's a what position?
11:14:55
That's a top level position in
11:15:05
88
Q.
A top level position at the MCSO, is that right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And you would certainly have expected the sheriff would not
have been ignored in the chain of command approving your rise
to that position, is that right?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
And at the time that you were promoted you were involved in
two IA investigations, I believe initially as a witness
concerning the matters involving Deputy Armendariz, is that
GB
OW
.C
OM
right?
11
A.
12
Armendariz-related investigations at the time of my promotion.
I'm aware of being a witness in one of those
MR. STEIN:
Excuse me, Your Honor.
15
THE COURT:
Why?
16
MR. STEIN:
I'm going to object to any testimony
briefly?
Overruled.
THE COURT:
You may proceed.
ND
19
20
BY MR. POCHODA:
21
Q.
11:16:10
IE
Subsequently, you have been named a principal in two
investigations concerning the matters involving Charley

Armendariz and the evidentiary issues.
FR
23
11:15:57
relating to Internal Affairs investigations.
18
22
May I be heard
OF
17
TH
E
13
14
11:15:36
FO
10
11:15:19
24
A.
Yes, sir.
25
Q.
And you have been interviewed by the persons involved in
11:16:19
89
those IA investigations, is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And so far there's not been a disposition of either of
those investigations, is there?
A.
Not that I'm aware of.
Q.
And you have subsequently been now named a principal in a
third investigation, IA investigation, is that right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And what does that investigation involve?
10
A.
I believe it's directly related to the issuance of
11
Judge Snow's December 23rd, 2011 order.
12
Q.
The preliminary injunction in this case?
13
A.
Yes, sir.
14
Q.
Finally, I want to turn to some issues involving orders in
15
this case.
16
Judge Snow in this case on April 3rd, 2014, is that right?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
And you were asked to appear, required to appear, because
19
of statements that you had made in a public community meeting,
20
is that right?
21
A.
11:16:33
TH
E
FO
11:16:43
11:17:01
OF
As you well know, you appeared at a hearing before
ND
Q.
11:17:23
Misstatements that I made, yes.

You had made misstatements concerning Judge Snow's May 2013
findings and conclusions, is that right?
FR
23
Has there?
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And, in fact, you were invited to attend this community
11:17:35
90
meeting and you stated you were happy to do so because you
wanted to give out full information to all those in the
community, is that right?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
But, in fact, the information you gave out was inaccurate.
A.
Yes.
Q.
And, in fact, you were not -- at the time of that meeting
you had not even read Judge Snow's May 13th, 2013 decision, had
you?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
I had not.
11
Q.
And you did not read it until shortly before the hearing on
12
April 3rd, 2014, correct?
13
A.
That is correct.
14
Q.
And amongst other things, you stated at that public meeting
15
that the findings of unconstitutionality by the Court were
16
based on the fact that deputies on average were holding
17
Hispanic drivers for 14 seconds longer than non-Hispanic
18
drivers, is that right?
19
A.
22
TH
E
OF
S
THE COURT:
You know, I appreciate, and I don't want
11:18:31
to curtail your testimony too much, but you've asked about this
in a timely fashion and I'm very familiar with Chief Trombi's
misstatements of my testimony and I'm very familiar with his
FR
23
Yes.
ND
21
11:18:16
IE
20
11:17:58
FO
10
11:17:46
24
recantation here on the stand, and if you want to review it
25
I'll allow you to do it briefly, but if we're looking for areas
11:18:52
to save time, I'm quite familiar with the history of this case.
MR. POCHODA:
Just one more question, Your Honor,
GB
OW
.C
OM
91
briefly.
BY MR. POCHODA:
Q.
published an op-ed piece in the Arizona Republic that also made
that same statement that the constitutional violations in this
case were based on that supposed 14-second matter?
Let me just ask, and you were aware that Chief Sheridan
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Hearsay.
Well, it's clearly not being offered for
the truth of the matter asserted, so I'm going to overrule the
12
objection.
13
BY MR. POCHODA:
14
Q.
15
Sheridan in that newspaper piece, is that right?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And at that same time of April of 2014 you had not read the
18
preliminary injunction in this case, correct?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
injunction of December 23rd, 2011, with anyone at the MCSO
You are aware that those statements had been made by Chief
OF
11:19:34
ND
As I stated earlier, yes, sir.

11:19:53
IE
And you had not discussed the content of the preliminary
prior to 2014, is that correct?

A.
That is correct.
24
Q.
And you did not know if the preliminary injunction that
25
we've been discussing required any changes in the practices of
FR
23
TH
E
11
22
11:19:25
FO
10
11:19:02
11:20:17
HSU personnel at the time you were supervising them, did you?
A.
Correct.
Q.
And in late 2011 you had supervisory authority over the
HSU, correct?
entered.
A.
chart, I'm not a hundred percent, but I believe so.
Q.
preliminary injunction had to be read by a person with
GB
OW
.C
OM
92
At the time the preliminary injunction was
I believe so.
Without a low org chart or organizational
And you were never informed by the sheriff that the
supervisory authority over the HSU, were you?
11
A.
No, sir.
12
Q.
And you were not aware of any changes in policy or practice
13
that were made by HSU personnel as a result of the Court
14
issuing the preliminary injunction, were you?
15
A.
TH
E
At that time, no.
MR. POCHODA:
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. IAFRATE:
22
24
25
11:21:08
Thank you.
I have nothing further.
Ms. Iafrate.
Your Honor, this exhibit is not in
ND
Could you pull up Exhibit 41, please?
THE COURT:
All right.
And just for me, please, and
11:21:57
the witness.
FR
23
evidence.
IE
21
OF
16
20
11:20:53
FO
10
19
11:20:37
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Would you please hand him Exhibit 41.
We've got it a little bit better on the
screen now.
MS. IAFRATE:
Great.
11:22:22
Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15
THE WITNESS:
93
Thanks.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
GB
OW
.C
OM
2
3
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Exhibit 41.
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is it?
A.
This is an organizational chart of the Sheriff's Office for
a number of years.
I'm showing you what is marked and not in evidence as

Do you recognize it?
Q.
Does it have a date on it?
11
A.
They do.
12
Q.
Okay.
13
This is what you were referring to?
14
A.
TH
E
And so this is what you were calling an org chart.
MS. IAFRATE:
18
MR. WALKER:
No objection.
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
No objection.
ND
19
20
BY MS. IAFRATE:
21
Q.
11:38:40
IE
Chief, does it show when this org chart was updated?
A.
Yes, it does.
Q.
And when is that?
24
A.
There's a date at the bottom stating updated February 20,
25
2015.
FR
23
11:38:40
admission of Exhibit 41.
17
22
Your Honor, I would move for the
OF
16
And they all appear to be the same.
Yes, ma'am.
15
11:22:45
FO
10
11:22:34
11:38:40
Q.
So this isn't the organization chart that was in place at
the time of the events that you have been discussing with
Mr. Pochoda, correct?
A.
Correct.
MS. IAFRATE:
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
front of you?
A.
Can we pull up Exhibit 136?
Yes.
evidence.
Your Honor, this next exhibit is not in
Could -Yes.
13
MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
Thank you.
TH
E
THE COURT:
And if they're not in evidence, so
specified, I'll just instruct my court deputy to show it to
16
you, me, and the witness.
OF
15
MS. IAFRATE:
Very well.
18
THE WITNESS:
Ma'am, I have to correct myself.
17
22
11:38:40
Okay.
THE WITNESS:
It is not accurate.
MS. IAFRATE:
Okay.
11:38:40
Hold on one moment.
Exhibit 136 is up on the screen and it's not in
evidence, so could we have it --
FR
23
IE
21
MS. IAFRATE:
ND
19
11:38:40
FO
MS. IAFRATE:
12
20
11:38:40
Well, as of today was that org chart correct that's in
10
11
GB
OW
.C
OM
94
24
THE COURT:
Go back to Exhibit 41.
25
MS. IAFRATE:
Thank you.
11:38:40
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Okay.
A.
140.
Q.
It should be Exhibit 41.
A.
My -- I'm sorry.
Q.
That's okay.
A.
It is 41.
Q.
Just so the record's clear, you're looking at Exhibit 41,
correct?
GB
OW
.C
OM
So you wanted to correct me regarding Exhibit 41?

Exhibit 140.
I'm looking at it upside down.
I apologize.
A.
Yes, I am.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
A.
Yes.
13
Freeman.
14
Q.
It was in February 2015, correct?
15
A.
I'm sorry.
16
Q.
And he has since retired, correct?
17
A.
Correct.
18
Q.
That's the only correction that you wanted to make?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
21
A.
24
25
In the administration command chief it lists Scott
TH
E
That is not accurate as of today.
11:38:40
ND
OF
Yes, it was.
11:38:40
As the enforcement -- enforcement operations command chief.
IE
Q.
11:38:40
And you wanted to make a correction?
As of February 2015 what was your position with MCSO?
Correct.
FR
23
11:38:40
FO
10
22
95
Yes.
So now I want you to look at your screen and you're going
to be looking at Exhibit 136.

Do you recognize that or do you need a paper copy?
11:38:40
A.
I recognize it as a low org chart from the Sheriff's
Office.
MR. COMO:
MR. WALKER:
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
No objection.
No objection.
What is this purporting to show?
It has been described by the witness as an
MR. POCHODA:
And what date is the question that we
don't have in evidence?

THE COURT:
13
MR. POCHODA:
14
THE COURT:
15
MR. POCHODA:
16
THE COURT:
Yes.
And what is your objection?

Foundation.
OF
18
BY MS. IAFRATE:
19
Q.
20
County Sheriff's Office generates as updates are made to the
21
organization of the entity?
Ms. Iafrate?
IE
ND
Does this appear to be an org chart that the Maricopa
A.
25
Yes.
11:38:41
And I'm only able to look at one page of this thus
far.
FR
24
11:38:41
Can you lay some foundation, please,
17
23
11:38:41
Do you have an objection?
TH
E
12
22
11:38:41
org chart for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
10
11
FO
MS. IAFRATE:
GB
OW
.C
OM
96
Q.
Understood, and we'll get there.

Can you scroll down just a little bit, please.
11:38:41
Can you see in the bottom of the page, and it's pretty
blurry, a date on this?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Q.
And what's the date?
A.
July of 2007.
6
7
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MR. POCHODA:
Mr. Pochoda?
No objection.
THE COURT:
136.
Is that the exhibit number?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
THE COURT:
13
It is, Your Honor.
TH
E
136 is admitted.
14
BY MS. IAFRATE:
15
Q.
16
Exhibit 136, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And can you find where you are -- what page you are listed
19
in that document, if you are listed?
20
A.
21
Q.
24
25
11:38:41
ND
OF
You now have in front of you what's in evidence as
It would be on page identified as MEL 049522.

Okay.
IE
FR
23
11:38:41
FO
10
22
11:38:41
GB
OW
.C
OM
97
11:38:41
Go back up.
Could you go back?

Okay.
So this is under Enforcement Operations Command, is
that correct?
11:38:41
A.
Yes.
Q.
And who is -- who was the head of Enforcement Operations
Command in 2007?
A.
Chief Brian Sands.
Q.
Who did you report to?
A.
Chief Brian Sands.
Q.
What was your position in 2007?
A.
I was the Patrol resource bureau chief.
Q.
And underneath that section is a variety of entities,
GB
OW
.C
OM
correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And you were -- you were in the chain of command for what
13
entities?
14
A.
15
court security, aviation, and SWAT.
16
Q.
And then it says high-risk responses.
17
A.
It is, yes.
18
Q.
When did your position as Patrol resource bureau chief
19
change?
20
A.
21
Q.
11:38:41
TH
E
11:38:41
Is that the same --
ND
OF
For animal abuse investigations, motors, K-9, extraditions,
I don't know.
11:38:41
IE
When were you promoted to your current position?
A.
July of 2014.
Q.
You discussed your role in the chain of command as it
FR
23
11:38:41
FO
10
22
98
24
related to HSU on direct examination.
25
A.
Yes.
Do you recall that?

11:38:41
Q.
Do you
recall that?
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
And explain to us what you mean by they could report to
you.
A.
I was.
Q.
And why wouldn't they report to you, then?
A.
Because they had the ability to be able to report directly
to Chief Sands if they chose to do so.
GB
OW
.C
OM
You said that members of HSU could report to you.
99
You were in the chain of command, correct?
Q.
Did they do that?
11
A.
They did.
12
Q.
Was there any demarcation of what you were responsible for
13
as related to supervision of HSU in what then-Chief Sands was
14
responsible for?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Can you explain to the Court what the demarcation was?
17
A.
I would typically assist with administrative functions and
18
matters in order to assist Chief Sands.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
ND
And you reported to him?

Correct.
But let's be clear.
11:38:41
You're not denying that you were in
the chain of command as it relates to HSU, correct?

A.
That is correct.
24
Q.
Did you ever go out on the road regarding any saturation
25
patrols?
FR
23
11:38:41
IE
22
11:38:41
FO
10
11:38:41
11:38:41
Trombi - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 100
A.
Not out on the road, no.
Q.
Did you ever go to any workplace locations when they were
conducting search warrants?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
So regarding the traffic stops, you weren't involved
hands-on regarding the traffic stops.
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
When did you first become aware of the Melendres matter?
A.
Probably when I heard it in the news and ongoing, I
GB
OW
.C
OM
suppose.
11
Q.
12
heard about it from the media?
13
A.
From my recollection, yes.
14
Q.
Prior to 2012 were you ever involved in any meetings
15
relating to Melendres and how it affected HSU?
16
A.
No.
17
Q.
Prior to 2012 did anyone ask you to gather any and all
18
videotapes that relate to HSU operations?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
anyone direct you to gather documents as they relate to HSU?
OF
Prior to 2012, as in the chain of command for HSU did
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Prior to 2012, where was HSU housed?
24
A.
They were down at the Enforcement Support building.
25
sorry.
FR
23
11:38:41
ND
No.
TH
E
When you say "in the news," you either read about it or
11:38:41
IE
22
11:38:41
FO
10
11:38:41
3325 West Durango.
I'm
11:38:41
Q.
And that was called the Enforcement Support building?
A.
It was just called Enforcement Support.
Q.
Did -- prior to 2012 or 2013, for that matter, did you know
how or if HSU secured videotapes?
A.
No.
Q.
Were you aware that HSU had binders that held these
recordings?
A.
No.
Q.
Did anyone ask you to go look and see, in 2012 or 2013, or
GB
OW
.C
OM
any time prior to that, to go look and see if any
11
video recordings existed?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
You discussed on direct examination that at one point you
14
sent out an e-mail in February 2014, and this is in evidence as
15
Exhibit 151, and you looked at this on direct examination,
16
correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
In February 2014, why did you send out this e-mail?
19
A.
As I mentioned earlier, there had been a discussion, rather
20
impromptu discussion, that took place in a common area on the
21
5th floor of our headquarters.
TH
E
OF
11:38:41
ND
Q.
Let me stop you there.
11:38:41
Who was involved in the
conversation, as you recall?
FR
23
IE
22
11:38:41
FO
10
11:38:41
24
A.
It was myself, Chief Sheridan, and I believe Scott Freeman,
25
and --
11:38:41
Q.
Okay.
A.
The fact that there had been a governor's Office of Highway
Safety grant that was being awarded or issued to us at the
Sheriff's Office for the purchase of body cameras to be used by
our Lake Patrol Division for their role in the statewide DUI
task force.
Q.
So you explained that to me.
8
9
And what was discussed?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Let's just jump ahead.
Then why send out this e-mail?

attempting to do?
What were you
A.
11
were potentially out in or on the road at that time.
12
Q.
Why did you want to know that?
13
A.
Because I think there was a realization that we didn't
14
necessarily have a policy to address that.
15
Q.
16
had?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And then with that information what did you intend to do?
19
A.
I'm not sure at that point what the intent was.
20
just to gather -- to know what we had, because clearly it
21
appeared we may need to create policy to deal with that.
11:38:41
TH
E
11:38:41
OF
So the first step was to determine how many cameras you
ND
It was
11:38:41
IE
Q.
Prior to the dissemination of this e-mail in 2014, was
there a policy as it related to video cameras?
FR
23
To ascertain how many other cameras and recording devices
FO
10
22
11:38:41
24
A.
25
Q.
Did someone instruct you to send out this e-mail?
11:38:41
A.
Yes.
Q.
Who?
A.
It was Chief Sheridan.
Q.
Did you run the language by him prior to sending it out?
A.
No.
Q.
Next, Mr. Pochoda jumped ahead to May 2014.
that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And he showed you Exhibit 38.
10
A.
Exhibit what?
11
Q.
38.
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
You generated this e-mail, correct?
14
A.
Yes, I did.
15
Q.
To the sworn side, correct?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
Chief MacIntyre's not one of the people that's listed on
18
this, correct?
19
A.
Correct.
20
Q.
21
A.
FO
11:38:41
TH
E
And this is in evidence.
OF
11:38:41
Q.
I do not see his name on it.

11:38:41
Correct.
This is a May 14, 2014 e-mail.
on it?
FR
23
11:38:41
Do you recall
Chief MacIntyre was never on the sworn side, correct?
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
ND
Can you see the time stamp
It's kind of muddled.
24
A.
Yes, I can.
25
Q.
When is it?
11:38:41
A.
It says 3:41 p.m.
Q.
Why did you send this e-mail out on 3:41 p.m.?
A.
Because that's when I completed putting it together and
sent it.
Q.
you were summonsed into a meeting, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And within that meeting was Tim Casey, Tom Liddy, Christine
Stutz, Chief Sheridan, and Sheriff Arpaio, correct?
So let's back up.
GB
OW
.C
OM
You discussed in direct examination that
A.
That is correct.
11
Q.
When you entered into the room were they all paying
12
attention?
13
A.
I don't know if they were or they weren't.
14
Q.
Did you hear other people talking?
15
A.
I don't recall.
16
Q.
You recall one person talking, and that was Chief Sheridan,
17
correct?
18
A.
That is correct.
19
Q.
And he gave you an order, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
ND
He did.
11:38:41
And he's in your chain of command, correct?
A.
He is.
Q.
Were you privy to that meeting, anything that was discussed
FR
23
11:38:41
IE
22
11:38:41
FO
10
11:38:41
24
prior to your entrance?
25
A.
No.
11:38:41
Q.
For example, did they give you a thumbnail sketch of what
they were discussing?
A.
No.
Q.
After their meetings were concluded, just regarding that
meeting, did anyone tell you what was discussed in that
meeting?
A.
No.
Q.
So when Chief Sheridan gave you the order, did you question
him why?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
No.
11
Q.
Why didn't you question him why?
12
A.
Because a couple of days earlier there had been a meeting
13
or gathering over in Internal Affairs with counsel and Internal
14
Affairs investigators and myself reviewing a video or two that
15
were collected or was collected as a result of the search
16
warrant that was executed at Charley Armendariz's residence.
17
Q.
18
order.
19
discuss some videos that were gathered as a result of a search
20
warrant at Charley Armendariz's home, correct?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
Okay.
So let's back up.
Let's go at it in chronological
ND
You're talking about a situation where you gathered to
11:39:23
Yes.
Q.
Did you review any videos?
A.
Two, yes.
24
Q.
And what -- just briefly describe the first one.
25
A.
The first one that I recall was a traffic stop.
FR
23
11:39:04
IE
22
11:38:41
FO
10
11:38:41
It was
11:39:36
daytime.
appeared to be in the parking lot of a strip mall or shopping
center.
driver and a male passenger that the -- what appeared to be or
sounded to be Charley Armendariz's voice who he was talking to,
and at some point the male passenger exits his passenger door
and gets out of the vehicle.
8
9
It was, I believe, a white passenger vehicle.
It
GB
OW
.C
OM
There was a female motorist -- I'm sorry -- female
Deputy Armendariz then, I think to -- to my shock and

probably others, draws his weapon and points it in the
direction of the male passenger, instructing him to get back
11
into the vehicle.
12
Q.
13
was dead, correct?
14
A.
15
or not.
16
Q.
Around the time frame of the search warrant, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
When you reviewed that video, what was your thought
19
process?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
This was a video that you reviewed after Charley Armendariz
I don't know -- I'm not sure if he was dead at that point
ND
OF
11:40:40
I was shocked to see that use of force being utilized.
11:40:50
IE
It was wrong?
A.
It absolutely was.
Q.
The second video that you reviewed, just briefly describe
FR
23
11:40:23
FO
10
22
11:40:01
24
what you saw.
25
A.
I believe that was a domestic violence situation.
It was
11:41:04
at night.
There were one or two, maybe three other deputies
that responded to a residence.
to both the victim and the male suspect.
Q.
this second video?
A.
No, none.
Q.
Who else besides you viewed these two videos at that time
prior to May 2014?
A.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Charley was speaking in Spanish
Was there what you deemed to be problematic behavior on
There was a number of people in that room, to include
counsel --
11
Q.
By "counsel," who do you mean?
12
A.
I'm sorry.
13
was there; he may have been.
14
room.
15
Q.
16
these videos, a group gathered and looked at these two,
17
correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
For what purpose?
20
A.
21
a need, potentially, to collect all video out there, and that
Mr. Casey for sure.
I'm not sure if Mr. Liddy
TH
E
IA investigators.
It was a full
I'm not sure who else was in there.

11:42:04
ND
OF
So as a result of the search warrant and the gathering of
11:42:14
IE
I think we realized that or anticipated that there would be
this would be discovered or shown to the Court.

Q.
And that was prior to May 14, 2014, correct?
24
A.
Yes, ma'am.
25
Q.
So when you got the order from Chief Sheridan on May 14,
FR
23
11:41:45
FO
10
22
11:41:28
11:42:36
2014, you knew -- well, let me ask you:
Did you connect it to
the viewing of these videos?
A.
Immediately.
Q.
You didn't ask Chief Sheridan, "Is this regarding the
videos that we saw?"
A.
I didn't need to.
Q.
So on May 2014 you generated this e-mail to a variety of
people in order to do what?
A.
GB
OW
.C
OM
To collect and preserve all video to send it up to Internal
Affairs for whatever was then going to become of it.
11
Q.
Did you type this yourself?
12
A.
Yes, I did.
13
Q.
Why did you put "all video is to be preserved" in caps, in
14
capitals?
15
A.
16
saw that.
17
Q.
18
anyone tell you about a sealed portion of a court hearing that
19
occurred?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
11:43:28
OF
I wanted that to be seen, and I wanted to make sure people
ND
Prior to or any time after generating this e-mail, did
No.
11:43:50
IE
Did you ever read a transcript regarding a sealed hearing
that occurred?
A.
FR
23
11:43:16
FO
10
22
11:42:53
No.
24
MS. IAFRATE:
May I have Exhibit 154?
25
believe that it's in evidence.
I do not
11:44:10
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Do you have Exhibit 154 in front of you?
A.
Yes, I do.
Q.
Do you recognize what it is?
correct?
A.
It's numerous pages, yes.
Q.
So take a moment and flip through it, see if you recognize
it.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And it's multi pages,
A.
I recognize the format that it's in, yes.
11
Q.
Do you recognize what it's referring to?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What's it referring to?
14
A.
It's explicit directions on how to proceed in collecting
15
any and all video.
16
Q.
What's the date on it?
17
A.
I'm sorry.
18
Q.
Just on the first one.
19
A.
I'm sorry.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
FR
23
11:45:09
What's the date on this?
May 19th.
What year?
I'm sorry.
IE
22
11:44:50
FO
10
11:44:40
11:45:20
2014.
That's okay.
And you said that you recognized the format.
24
it that you recognized the format?
25
A.
How is
Because the questions were specific as to how we wanted
11:45:26
everyone to be able to respond to this request uniformly.
2
3
MS. IAFRATE:
MR. COMO:
MR. WALKER:
MR. POCHODA:
Objection, foundation.
THE COURT:
No objection.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Overruled.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
So Exhibit 154 is now in evidence.
11
you recognize the format because it was very specific what you
12
all wanted to occur regarding this incident.
13
the subject of these memos that are in Exhibit 154?
14
A.
15
of dash cams, eyeglass, body-mount cameras, even Taser weapon
16
cameras.
17
Q.
18
You're talking about video and audio.
19
A.
20
Q.
21
audio through office-wide, correct?
You said that
Any and all video cameras, video captured through the use
OF
11:46:26
So you're not just talking about the cameras, correct?
ND
And audio, yes, correct.

11:46:39
IE
So this was an attempt to gather any and all video and
A.
Yes.
Q.
This didn't just go to HSU, correct?
24
A.
It did not, correct.
25
Q.
It went to anyone that potentially could or did have a
FR
23
11:46:01
What -- what was
TH
E
FO
10
22
Okay.
11:45:47
11:46:50
camera through MCSO, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Or even private cameras, correct?
A.
Personally or office-issued, yes.
Q.
Let's just look at the first one.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Can you scroll up just a little bit?
So this is from Deputy Quintero to Captain Waylon?
To the top.
Who's Captain Waylon?
A.
Captain Waylon is the District 2 commander.
10
Q.
And what does District 2 mean?
11
A.
I'm sorry.
12
southwest valley.
13
Q.
14
audio go to all the districts?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And did you get a response from all the districts regarding
17
video and audio?
18
A.
19
went to Internal Affairs.
20
Q.
21
A.
District 2 is our patrol district in the
OF
TH
E
So did the information regarding the gathering of video and
ND
I believe so, but they were directed -- I believe these
Why didn't this information go directly to you?
IE
This was going to be part of the video and audio gathering
collection.
Q.
FR
23
FO
22
11:47:06
So your -- your e-mail in May 2014 that went out to the
24
Patrol district supervisors, they were told to then report
25
directly to IA regarding what they found?
11:47:27
A.
Yes.
Q.
You were no longer in that process once you generated the
e-mail?
A.
Correct.
Q.
I want to show you what's not in evidence as Exhibit 155.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And if you could scroll down to the bottom.
Keep going.
Chief Trombi, do you recognize --
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate?
11
MS. IAFRATE:
12
THE COURT:
I have the name of a reporter who's doing
a live Tweet of everything that's in here on her cell phone.
TH
E
13
Sure.
FO
10
Can I interrupt you for a moment,
14
I'm going to give you two minutes to put away your

cell phones and if the marshals see anybody on a cell phone,
16
including -- is Christian Benevidez here?
17
Are you Tweeting, sir?
18
MR. BENEVIDEZ:
OF
15
THE COURT:
There's no Tweeting allowed.
ND
19
Yeah, with my computer.
record but there is no live Tweeting allowed.
21
down notes but we won't have any live Tweeting.
22
24
25
All right.
You can take
Thank you.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
FR
23
IE
20
You can
Q.
So I showed you what is Exhibit 155 that's not in evidence.

Do you recognize it?
A.
I have seen it, yes.
Q.
When was the first time you saw this?
A.
At my deposition a couple of weeks ago.
Q.
So let's go back up to the first page.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Stop.
No, go back down.
Do you see that sticker in the bottom right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That indicates that that was part of your deposition on
March 31, 2015, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
That was the first time you saw this letter?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Do you understand this to be a letter from Chief Sheridan
15
to Chief Warshaw?
16
A.
TH
E
FO
10
OF
Yes, I do, by the names that appear on it.

MS. IAFRATE:
18
19
17
ND
MR. COMO:
20
MR. WALKER:
FR
23
No objection.
MR. POCHODA:
IE
21
22
No objection.
THE COURT:
No objection.
155 is admitted.
24
BY MS. IAFRATE:
25
Q.
So just to ask the obvious, before this letter was sent to
Chief Warshaw did you have an opportunity to review it for
accuracy?
A.
No.
Q.
When you looked at this letter at your deposition did you
recognize -- was it completely accurate?
A.
No.
Q.
Can you explain to the Court what pieces were not accurate
in your view.
A.
The third paragraph in parentheses, and if I may read?
10
Q.
Yes.
11
A.
"In preparation for this letter, I specifically asked
12
Deputy Chief Trombi, who told him to do this, and his response
13
was it was a collective decision of all parties."
14
Q.
15
people present, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Including counsel.
18
A.
Correct.
19
Q.
And the sheriff himself.
20
A.
21
Q.
FO
TH
E
OF
ND
Correct.
But Chief Sheridan was the one that provided you the spoken
words to go generate that e-mail, correct?

A.
That is correct.
24
Q.
Are there any other areas in this letter that you did not
25
believe was completely accurate?
FR
23
Now, when you went into that room there were at least five
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
If I may take a moment to read?
Q.
Sure.
A.
I don't see anything else in there that's inaccurate.
Q.
Chief Trombi, at some point in May 14, 2014 you had another
conversation with Chief Sheridan regarding your dissemination
of your e-mail, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That was later in the night?
A.
Late afternoon, I believe.
10
Q.
Who else was present?
11
A.
Counsel, Ms. Stutz.
12
Q.
In your conversation with Chief Sheridan regarding your
13
e-mail, what was discussed?
14
A.
15
had just left and that they were going to formulate a plan on
16
how to collect video.
17
Q.
Did you -- were you surprised?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Why?
20
A.
21
already sent an e-mail out at his direction to do that.
FO
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
Because I quickly informed the chief deputy that I had
What was -- what, if anything, was Chief Sheridan's
reaction?
FR
23
That he had mentioned to me that the -- that Chief Warshaw
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
Shock.
Surprise.
25
Q.
Well, he was the one that gave you the directive.
A.
Correct.
Q.
So did he explain to you why he was shocked or surprised?
A.
He simply said he'd forgotten that he told me to do so.
Q.
Now, did he share with you anything further regarding his
discussion with the monitors?
A.
we hadn't done anything.
Q.
And that indeed was inaccurate, correct?
A.
Correct.
10
Q.
There was some discussion on your direct examination
11
regarding supervision of Deputy Armendariz.
GB
OW
.C
OM
12
Do you recall that?
FO
Nothing other than he had already told Chief Warshaw that
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And you were shown two documents, Exhibit 118, which is in
15
evidence, and 133, which is not.
TH
E
13
Do you have those two in front of you?
OF
16
A.
I do.
18
Q.
We're just going to show 118.
17
In the e-mail from Lieutenant Jakowinicz, what was the
ND
19
20
purpose of this memo to you, if you know?
21
A.
complaints that Deputy Armendariz was receiving; that those

complaints are not observed.
FR
23
IE
22
That he had taken steps to address issues related to
24
Q.
Well, let me stop you right there.
25
don't know what you mean.
"Are not observed."
So someone generated a complaint, correct?

A.
Correct.
Q.
And was that complaint valid or unfounded?
A.
Well, in Lieutenant Jakowinicz's words, he writes "are not
observed," which to me would mean also unfounded or not
sustained.
Q.
providing you with this memo -- what -- what relief did he
seek?
GB
OW
.C
OM
And do you know what the purpose of Lieutenant Jakowinicz
A.
What was what?
11
Q.
What relief did he seek?
12
A.
He wanted me to transfer him out of that unit.
13
Q.
As a supervisor -- how long have you been with the
14
Sheriff's Office?
15
A.
24 years.
16
Q.
How long have you been a supervisor?
17
A.
Since 1996, I believe, is when I was promoted to sergeant.
18
Q.
Is it a good management decision to move someone from one
19
unit to another just because someone is asking you to?
20
A.
21
issue; it only causes it to go elsewhere and manifest.
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
Transferring a problem, in my experience, doesn't fix the
So you testified on direct examination that you met with
Deputy Armendariz, correct?
FR
23
What did he want you to do?
IE
22
FO
10
24
A.
Correct.
25
Q.
Why didn't you transfer him?
A.
Because in that meeting I believed when Charley Armendariz
told me that he was going to be more cognizant of his
mannerisms, of his nonverbal expressions, things that I
believed were causing these complaints, and I believed him.
Q.
people?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you believe Deputy Armendariz when he was expressing
that he would change?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Is it generally your personality trait to believe in
A.
I absolutely did.
11
Q.
When you were working and you were in the chain of command
12
of HSU, were you aware of a call between Sergeant Palmer and
13
the sheriff?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Do you know who Sergeant Palmer is?
16
A.
I do.
17
Q.
Were you involved in the decision-making of where
18
saturation patrols should occur?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
search warrants would be executed for identity theft purposes?
TH
E
OF
ND
A.
FR
23
No.
Were you involved in the decision-making of where certain
IE
22
FO
10
No.
THE COURT:
Just for my clarification, Ms. Iafrate,
24
when you're asking about saturation patrols or search warrants,
25
I assume you're talking about post-preliminary injunction.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
I'm talking about ever.
All right.
That's fine.
Thank you.
GB
OW
.C
OM
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
Would your answer change regarding those two questions?
A.
It would not.
Q.
I want to talk to you about --
Would it make a difference if I gave you a time frame?
8
9
THE COURT:
You know, Ms. Iafrate, again it's about
time for the noon break.
I don't want to interrupt you at an
inconvenient place, but could you look for a convenient place
11
to stop?
12
14
THE COURT:
stop.
16
17
morning.
22
THE COURT:
24
25
Your Honor, I have a housekeeping
Sure.
MS. IAFRATE:
Would you prefer that I do it after
lunch or before?
FR
23
matter.
ND
21
We'll be back at one o'clock.

MS. IAFRATE:
IE
20
So it might be a good time to
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to recess for the
18
19
All right.
OF
15
TH
E
now.
I'm moving to a different topic right
13
MS. IAFRATE:
FO
10
THE COURT:
No, we can do it before, but people can
leave.
MS. IAFRATE:
Yes.
THE COURT:
Among the people that can leave is you, Chief Trombi,

but we'll expect you to be back at one o'clock.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
MR. McDONALD:
malfunctioning.
address this to.
Thanks.
THE COURT:
We will take care of it over lunch.
Thanks for raising it.
11
MR. McDONALD:
12
THE COURT:
13
Yes, ma'am?
14
MS. IAFRATE:
TH
E
events has been --
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
22
24
25
Oh, yes.
-- somebody in the back was trying to get
ND
the Court's attention and I was talking to -UNIDENTIFIED SPECTATOR:

THE COURT:
I have something to say.
Well, I'm sorry, ma'am.
You need to talk
to the plaintiffs' attorneys, and they can -- and they can

determine whether it's something that needs to be raised with
FR
23
Ms. Iafrate --
IE
21
Well, Your Honor, today's chronology of
Oh, I'm sorry.
OF
THE COURT:
20
Thanks.
Is anybody else having a problem?
16
19
Our video machine here is
The sheriff and I -- I don't know who to
10
15
Yes, sir.
FO
And then we'll take it up if they want.
GB
OW
.C
OM
the Court, okay?

UNIDENTIFIED SPECTATOR:
It's regarding the law and
the government.
It is a bunch of lies.
THE COURT:
Let me just say, I didn't understand what
GB
OW
.C
OM
was said because my hearing is not too good.
people in the gallery and in the audience may have strong
feelings about this case on both sides of the question.
can't restrain yourself, you will be escorted out.
I understand that
If you
I just want to make sure that everybody knows they're
welcome to be here, as they certainly are, but you're welcome
to be here under the orders and rules of the court.

Okay?
11
Ms. Iafrate?
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
So plaintiffs' counsels' lineup is Chief Trombi,
TH
E
14
FO
10
Sergeant Palmer, and then Lieutenant Sousa.

THE COURT:
Yes.
16
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
15
I had co-counsel at the beginning of
today.
18
There are certain witnesses that I did not prepare for.
19
the third one today is one of those witnesses.
22
24
25
Did you cover that, Mr. Liddy?
MR. LIDDY:
I covered -- I think she's specifically
referring to that of Lieutenant Sousa.
The answer would be
yes, Your Honor.
FR
23
ND
21
And
THE COURT:
IE
20
There are certain depositions that I did not attend.
17
THE COURT:
Well, can you make a determination whether
or not you've got an ethical issue over lunch?
MR. LIDDY:
No, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Can you make it by the afternoon?
MR. LIDDY:
No, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Can you brief Ms. Iafrate about the
GB
OW
.C
OM
deposition by that time?
MR. LIDDY:
I cannot, in my opinion, to the extent
that she can provide effective representation of counsel, Your
Honor.
THE COURT:
All right.
Which deposition -- when can
you make a determination of whether or not you can join this
11
case?
12
Mr. Liddy, and I want to respect your ethical sense, but I've
13
already indicated that from my sense the Ninth Circuit was
14
simply a matter of naming the appropriate jural entity and it
15
does not change the reality underlying this case.
16
opinion of what they've ruled.
17
own decision.
FO
10
OF
TH
E
You've already heard -- and I do want to respect you,
I realize you have to make your
When can you make that determination by?
MR. LIDDY:
After I have consulted with counsel and
18
That is my
with my supervisors at the County Attorney's Office, Your
20
Honor.
THE COURT:
Okay.
MR. LIDDY:
I was going to do that presently.
24
THE COURT:
If you would do that, I'd appreciate it.
25
Can I ask before you go to pursue what depositions did
22
And when will you be able to do
that?
FR
23
IE
21
ND
19
you cover?
2
3
MR. LIDDY:
I covered all the depositions except
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sergeant Palmer's and perhaps one other, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
Ms. Wang?
Your Honor, just to clarify, Mr. Liddy was
present at many of the depositions but not all -- but was not
the attorney defending all of the depositions.
it is true that Ms. Iafrate was not present for at least one of
the depositions of Lieutenant Sousa.
10
THE COURT:
11
Under the circumstances, if you can make other
FO
All right.
I believe that
arrangements, I'm going to ask you to call somebody else other
13
than Lieutenant Sousa this afternoon.
14
MS. WANG:
TH
E
12
Is that possible?
Your Honor, it is possible, but I would
15
like to register that plaintiffs are prejudiced by this move by
16
the defendants.
17
certain order and --
OF
We had our case in chief ready to present in a
THE COURT:
Well, that -- this is what we'll do, then.
18
We'll take -- we'll take up until we get to Lieutenant Sousa,
20
and then if Mr. Liddy has not been able to resolve his ethical
21
concern ones way or another we'll break for the day, and in
that way Ms. Iafrate will, if nothing more, be able to read the
transcript of the deposition and be prepared to resume tomorrow
FR
23
IE
22
ND
19
24
25
morning.
Now, were there any other depositions, Ms. Iafrate,
where you were not present?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Which were they?
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
All right.
Could I provide that list to you after
lunch?
THE COURT:
That would be a good idea.
I want to say a few other things in terms of
FO
10
11
I would need to look at a list, Your
Honor.
Yes, Your Honor.
GB
OW
.C
OM
housekeeping.
12
I have kept track of the testimony, as I said I would.

I'll give you your time limits if you want.
14
that time limits are going to be necessary, because I do not
15
want -- I mean, I realize that there is a lot of interest in
16
this question and I don't want -- and I do want to have
17
appropriate contexts.
18
in this case.
19
and I think I know this case better than anybody in the room.
20
I don't need to have you repeat a whole bunch of stuff that I
21
already know.
OF
But you do not -- really, I'm the trier
ND
I am the trier-of-fact and I am the determiner,
I understand you might want to say some things
for clarification but I think you're going to benefit from

guidelines and from hourly guidelines.
FR
23
It's clear to me
IE
22
TH
E
13
24
So what we will do is before I set the guidelines we
25
will take Sergeant Palmer after lunch and then you don't have
anybody else?
Before we split to have Ms. Iafrate study the
depositions or make whatever determinations we can make about
Mr. Liddy, I'm going to go over the witnesses and when they're
going to come and how many are going to be joint witnesses and
we're going to set some time limits, and I'm going to apply the
time limits I've already had so that we don't just go on
forever.
Any questions about that?
MS. IAFRATE:
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, one thing just about what we do
FO
10
No.
GB
OW
.C
OM
11
when we come back from the lunch break.
12
Ms. Iafrate is prepared to go forward with the next witness in
13
order, which is Chief Sands.
14
Chief Sands in place of Lieutenant Sousa.

MS. IAFRATE:
16
MS. WANG:
17
THE COURT:
18
MS. WANG:
22
24
25
After Palmer.
OF
MS. WANG:
FR
23
I thought Palmer was next.

I'm sorry.
So you could do Palmer, then Sands.
Yes.
Without materially disrupting your case
presentation?
IE
21
THE COURT:
ND
19
20
We would be prepared to go with
TH
E
15
I don't know if
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor.

Any objection to that?
MS. IAFRATE:
with Mr. Sands.
Just that I will be prepared to proceed
No objection.
THE COURT:
All right.
Any objection by you, Mr. Como, if we proceed in that

way?
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
And how about you, Mr. Walker?

All right.
that out.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Then we'll see if we can work
In the meantime, over the lunch hour, exchange
exhibits, everybody give Mr. Walker and Mr. Como the exhibits
if they don't have them.
11
if you can.
12
going to argue to.
I'll just enter a chain of exhibits that nobody's
I mean, I realize that you have the right and it may
TH
E
13
See if you can arrive at stipulations
FO
10
be appropriate on some exhibits to make foundational
15
objections, but truthfully, nobody -- everybody knows -- for
16
example, I've already seen, everybody knows Chief Deputy
17
Sheridan's response to the monitor, and even though it came
18
through Chief Trombi, and I think it was appropriate, nobody
19
made objections to it.
20
They're just going to waste a lot of time.
The documents are
21
what they are.
If there's no
ND
We all know what they are.
dispute about them, let's get them in so we're not wasting this
time.
FR
23
There could have been objections.
IE
22
OF
14
Okay?
24
All right.
I'll see you at one o'clock.
25
(Proceedings recessed at 12:08 p.m.)
13:06:18
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate.
MS. IAFRATE:
Please be seated.
BY
MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
It's Exhibit 157.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Chief Trombi, I want to show you what's not in evidence.
THE CLERK:
THE WITNESS:
(Handing exhibit to witness).

Thank you.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
11
Q.
Do you know who Tim Casey is?
12
A.
Yes, I do.
13
Q.
Prior to 2013, did you have any conversations with Tim
14
Casey regarding the Melendres matter?
15
A.
None that I recall, no.
16
Q.
Did you ever receive e-mails from Tim Casey regarding the
17
Melendres matter?
18
A.
No, ma'am.
19
Q.
Did you ever receive the preliminary injunction from Tim
20
Casey?
21
A.
TH
E
ND
OF
13:07:05
13:07:20
IE
No, I did not.
Q.
Did you receive the preliminary injunction in 2011?
A.
No.
24
Q.
Did you receive it in 2012?
25
A.
No.
FR
23
13:06:53
FO
10
22
13:06:27
13:07:28
Q.
preliminary injunction?
A.
Sometime prior to my April 3rd, 2014, testimony.
Q.
Was there a process in place -- you were one in the chain
of command for HSU, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you discuss a preliminary injunction with Brian
Sands?
A.
No.
10
Q.
Were you involved in any training scenarios to implement
11
the preliminary injunction for HSU?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Did you receive any e-mails from Lieutenant Sousa regarding
14
training scenarios?
15
A.
No, not that I'm aware of.
16
Q.
Did you receive any e-mails from Sergeant Palmer regarding
17
training scenarios?
18
A.
19
Q.
Did you receive any training scenarios or information
20
regarding the preliminary injunction from Sergeant Trowbridge?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
FO
13:07:58
OF
13:08:24
ND
Q.
13:08:43
No, not that I'm aware of.

Were you involved in training HSU detectives following the
FR
23
13:07:52
IE
22
Do you know when the first time was that you read the
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
No.
And I have to correct myself, I'm sorry.
The question
13:09:04
regarding training scenarios, I have recently seen a
deposition, an e-mail, that I am in that e-mail string as
having been a recipient of those training scenarios but have no
recollection of having received it.
Q.
HSU that you would expect you would be part of the discussion?
A.
Would be what?
Q.
Those training scenarios, if they were being generated for
HSU, as being in the chain of command, would you expect to be
GB
OW
.C
OM
Would that be something as -- in the chain of command of
part of that discussion?
11
A.
Not typically.
12
Q.
Why not?
13
A.
My involvement was more along the lines, as I testified
14
earlier, with administrative issues as opposed to operational
15
duties.
TH
E
MS. IAFRATE:
17
THE COURT:
18
Mr. Walker.
OF
16
21
22
THE COURT:
FR
23
24
25
I have nothing further, Your Honor.
I have no questions for this witness,
Your Honor.
IE
20
MR. COMO:
13:10:05
All right.
MR. WALKER:
ND
19
13:09:44
FO
10
13:09:25
13:10:21
Mr. Como.
I do have a few.
Can you please show the witness Exhibit 185, which is
not in evidence.
13:11:11
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
rec- --
Chief Trombi, take a look at Exhibit No. 185.
5
6
MS. IAFRATE:
clarification?
Do you
Your Honor, could I get some
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Mr. Como indicated it was not in evidence.

I'm sorry.
BY MR. COMO:
Thank you.
Q.
Do you recognize this document?
11
A.
I've seen it before, yes.
12
Q.
Is this the e-mail that you mentioned a few minutes ago
13
that you saw at your deposition?
14
A.
Yes, sir, it is.
15
Q.
If you look at the page that ends 950, the first page of
16
Exhibit 185, do you see on the cc line, is that your name on
17
there?
18
A.
Yes, sir, it is.
19
Q.
Do you believe that -- is that your correct e-mail address
20
at that time?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
ND
OF
13:11:48
13:12:08
Yes, it would be.
IE
Q.
Do you have any reason to believe you did not receive this
e-mail on January 24, 2012?
FR
23
13:11:39
FO
10
22
13:11:27
Is 185 in evidence.
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
I do not.
MR. COMO:
Your Honor, I move for admission of
13:12:18
Exhibit 185.
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
MS. IAFRATE:
No, Your Honor.
MR. POCHODA:
No.
THE COURT:
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
No objection.
Exhibit 185 provides four training scenarios that Mr. -- or
Sergeant Palmer put together.
11
Do you see that?

A.
Yes, I do.
13
Q.
So you did receive the training scenarios, according to
14
this e-mail, if this e-mail is accurate, you did receive those
15
back in January 2012, correct?
16
A.
17
recipient line, but I have no memory of having seen this before
18
my deposition the other day.
TH
E
12
Exhibit 189, which is not in evidence.

THE CLERK:
13:13:21
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
Chief Trombi, do you recognize Exhibit 189?
24
A.
With the exception of the first part on page 1, it appears
25
to be the same as Exhibit 185.
FR
23
Can you please show the witness
IE
22
13:12:52
OF
S
ND
MR. COMO:
21
13:12:39
I must have received them based on the fact that I'm on the
19
20
13:12:25
FO
10
Any objection?
GB
OW
.C
OM
13:14:00
Q.
Okay.
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
MS. IAFRATE:
No, Your Honor.
MR. POCHODA:
No objection.
THE COURT:
Objections?
No, Your Honor.
BY MR. COMO:
10
Q.
11
Tom Liddy.
The top part of Exhibit 189 is an e-mail from Mr. Casey to
12
Do you see that?

A.
Yes, sir, I do.
14
Q.
And if you follow the e-mail chain, it appears that
15
Mr. Casey was provided the training scenarios that were
16
forwarded to you on the same date of January 24, 2012?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
What does Mr. Casey's e-mail state?
19
A.
And you're referring to the top portion of --
20
Q.
21
A.
OF
13:14:46
13:15:04
In the body of it, it says, "FYI for your proposed revision
IE
Q.
13:14:36
ND
Yes.
and feedback, thanks.
FR
23
TH
E
13
22
13:14:23
FO
Your Honor, I move for Exhibit 189.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Tim."
Did you ever hear back from Tim Casey, or did you ever
24
speak with Tim Casey about the training scenarios?
25
A.
No, sir.
13:15:22
MR. COMO:
Can we please show the witness Exhibit 186
that's not in -- or is that admitted?
that's in evidence, or -- I believe that's not yet in evidence,
Exhibit 156.
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
Have you ever seen this e-mail chain?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Was this also shown to you at your deposition?
A.
Yes, sir, it was.
11
MR. COMO:
I believe
Your Honor, I move for admission of
Exhibit 156.
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. WALKER:
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
16
MR. POCHODA:
17
THE COURT:
OF
TH
E
None, Your Honor.

May I just have one minute, Your Honor.
13:16:31
No objection.
I'm going to ask that people stand when
19
court reporter knows who's speaking.
ND
they indicate whether or not they have an objection so the
20
13:16:38
IE
21
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
FR
23
13:16:07
Any objection?
18
22
13:15:45
FO
10
Exhibit 156.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Chief Trombi, Exhibit 156 is an e-mail -- the first page of
24
that at the top is an e-mail dated March 27, 2012, from
25
Lieutenant Sousa to Sergeant Palmer.
13:16:53
Do you see that?

A.
Yes, sir, I do.
Q.
And also copied on the e-mail was Lieutenant Jakowinicz.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Do you see that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know who was in charge of HSU at that point in time?
A.
It would have been Brian Sands and myself, I believe.
Q.
Okay.
SWAT by this point in time, do you know?
But beneath you, had Lieutenant Sousa moved off to
A.
I'm sorry, I don't know.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
Brett."
13
referring to?
14
A.
I would, yes.
15
Q.
States, quote:
16
emails, once Tim signs off on the scenarios, Brian can make
17
sure Chief Sands and Trombi are good with you getting with
18
training and putting out the training via E Learning."
The -- Exhibit 156, the very top e-mail states:
13:17:28
"Hi
TH
E
Would you assume that's Brett Palmer that he's
13:17:42
OF
"We still need to address the listed
Do you see that?
A.
21
Q.
Yes, I do.
13:17:58
What's the E Learning program?
IE
20
ND
19
A.
E Learning is a Sheriff's Office program that allows and
enables deputies to be able to, through the use of their
FR
23
FO
10
22
13:17:05
24
computers, go into specific assignments and to read or take
25
tests specific to whatever the issue is.
13:18:18
Q.
Is that available office-wide to all of the deputies?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So if the training scenarios had been published on --
through E Learning at the Sheriff's Office, that would have
been available throughout the entire office for all the
deputies, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
this e-mail to state that they're waiting for Mr. Casey to give
GB
OW
.C
OM
This -- this e-mail states that -- would you read
his input on the scenarios, and then it would then come back
11
and go to either you or Chief Sands?
12
A.
Perhaps both of us, yes.
13
Q.
Do you know whether Mr. Casey ever signed off on these
14
e-mails or -- I'm sorry -- signed off on the scenarios, the
15
training scenarios?
16
A.
I do not know.
17
Q.
It never came back to you to approve the training?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Now, your current position is chief of enforcement.
20
many deputies report to you?
21
A.
TH
E
Or perhaps both of you?
ND
OF
13:19:17
How
13:19:29
IE
All of them, which would be around 600; maybe more than
that at this time, maybe 700.

Q.
FR
23
13:18:53
FO
10
22
13:18:37
Is the training department still under the chief of
24
enforcement?
25
A.
Yes.
13:19:47
Q.
So the training department is responsible for putting the
final training materials together on a presentation that goes
through E Learning, correct?
A.
I would believe so, yes.
Q.
How -- do you have any estimate of how many training
presentations are put together by the Sheriff's Office, say, in
the roughly 10 months that you've been chief of enforcement?
A.
Not a clue.
Q.
Dozens?
Numerous would be my best estimate.
Dozens.
Do you, as the chief of enforcement, personally review

all of those training presentations before they're put out?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
That would be a level of detail far beyond what is expected
14
of your position, correct?
15
A.
16
Yes.
17
Q.
18
where it's decided that training needs to be done, what would
19
your role be in terms of seeing that training materials got put
20
together?
21
A.
13:20:19
13:20:33
OF
It would be -- let me answer your question, I'm sorry.
ND
When you're a chief of enforcement and a topic comes up
13:20:53
IE
I would communicate directly to the chief of training, who
would then assemble that training and ensure that his training
personnel build the curriculum and then have it placed on the
FR
23
TH
E
11
22
13:20:00
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
E Learning system.
25
Q.
And is it your practice, once you do so, that you expect
13:21:12
Trombi-Redirect CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 137
them to complete that, prepare the training materials, and put
it out?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You don't feel the need to continually follow up to see
whether they're doing their job?
A.
No.
7
8
MR. COMO:
Thank you.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Redirect, Mr. Pochoda?
11
MR. POCHODA:
12
Very brief.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. POCHODA:
14
Q.
15
large-scale law enforcement/MCSO operation on October of 2013
16
in the West Valley, is that correct?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
And that was not the first large-scale operation that you
19
had been involved in the planning for, was it?
20
A.
21
Q.
Chief Trombi, you were involved in the training of a
ND
OF
13:21:44
It may have been.
13:21:56
IE
And that was -- that was an operational issue that took
place, an operational patrol and saturation that took place in

October 2013, is that right?
FR
23
TH
E
13
22
13:21:29
FO
10
13:21:23
That's all the questions I
have.
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
The 18th and 19th, yes, sir.
25
Q.
And we discussed before matters that were brought to you by
13:22:25
Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Jakowinicz, and Sergeant
Trowbridge concerning Deputy Armendariz and his actions within
the HSU.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And would you consider that a substantive issue for the
HSU, whether someone should remain at the HSU or be removed
because of improper behaviors at the HSU?
Is that what your definition of "administrative" is?

A.
In part, yes.
11
Q.
So when you answered the questions of counsel that you had
12
administrative chores, you include in that decisions about
13
whether the HSU deputies had acted properly or improperly on an
14
occasion and whether they should be kept in HSU, is that
15
correct?
16
A.
In that instance, yes.
17
Q.
And you didn't know much about the administrative details
18
of HSU, did you?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
example, if individual deputies at HSU kept binders for their
TH
E
OF
13:23:14
Your question?
ND
And I'm sorry, sir.
13:23:31
IE
Well, you testified before that you didn't know, for
tapes, is that correct?

A.
That is correct.
24
Q.
And you didn't know what procedures they used for logging
25
in evidence, is that correct?
FR
23
13:23:01
FO
10
22
13:22:42
13:23:42
A.
Correct.
Q.
What administrative areas did you know anything about while
you were the supervisor at HSU?
A.
ensuring that things were signed that way, off-duty work
permits that had to be signed up the chain of command.
trying to think of other instances.
Q.
Sure.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
12
I'm
May the witness finish his answer?
If you weren't finished, please do finish
your answer.
THE WITNESS:
14
actually, I think I had completed my answer, but thank you.
15
BY MR. POCHODA:
16
Q.
17
with a problem at HSU about substance that you're not going to
18
handle it because you only do administrative matters, did you?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
Lieutenant Sousa, don't bring up that substantive area to me
TH
E
details regarding the signing of off-duty work permits --
13:24:36
OF
But you did not tell these deputies when they came to you
ND
At times I would defer to Chief Sands.

13:24:58
IE
For example, you didn't let Sergeant Trowbridge or
about how someone operated because I only handle administrative

chores, did you?
FR
23
13:24:18
So assignments regarding -- or rather
13
22
13:23:59
FO
10
11
So with regards to purchase order requirements,
Did you -- you did --
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
No, sir.
25
Q.
And generally a deputy at HSU could come to you with any
13:25:08
Trombi - CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15
problem involving an HSU operation.
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And they could also go to Chief Sands if they preferred?
A.
Correct.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
Thank you.
Is that fair to say?
GB
OW
.C
OM
140
No further questions.
You know, Chief, I am going to try to
refrain from asking questions, but I do have a few questions
for you, just 'cause I'm not sure, and I'm going to ask them
now because I'm going to allow Mr. Pochoda to ask any
follow-ups that I have, and then I'm going to allow, again, the
11
attorneys to do their follow-up, and then at least for this
12
time you may be through, subject to recall.

EXAMINATION
TH
E
13
14
BY THE COURT:
15
Q.
16
conversation with Deputy Armendariz in which you said you
17
believed him?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Can I ask you, sir, you said you were with MCSO, did you
20
say 26 years?
21
A.
13:25:54
ND
OF
Do you remember when you were talking about your
13:26:11
24, sir.
IE
Q.
FR
23
13:25:40
FO
10
22
13:25:20
24.
And you were a deputy for a year and a half on Patrol?
24
A.
Approximately, maybe a little longer.
25
Q.
And then you went to the public information office?
13:26:18
A.
No, sir.
Q.
Where did you go?
A.
From Patrol I went to the civil division.
Q.
For how long?
A.
I believe two years.
Q.
Were you a deputy there as well?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And then did you go to the PIO?
A.
No, sir.
10
Q.
Trace me through, if you will.
11
A.
Okay.
12
was really what we called Squad 5, and that was as a Patrol
13
deputy as well.
FO
16
I'm sorry, as a deputy as well.
After search --
13:26:55
OF
and rescue as a search and rescue coordinator.
17
After search and rescue -- excuse me -- I left and

went to public information officer for approximately four
19
and a half years.
20
lieutenant while a public information officer, and left the
21
public information officer to my next Patrol assignment as a
I made the ranks of sergeant and then
IE
ND
18
lieutenant, I think in 2002, I believe.
13:27:17
And so then as a
lieutenant I was in Patrol for a couple years until I was
FR
23
13:26:36
From there I ended up in Enforcement Support in search
15
22
13:26:28
So after I left civil I went to Lake Patrol, which
TH
E
14
GB
OW
.C
OM
141
24
reassigned to the SWAT division in 2004.
25
Q.
And were you the commander or the deputy commander at SWAT?
13:27:43
A.
I was the commander.
Q.
Is a commander different than a captain, or --
A.
No, sir.
Q.
A commander and a captain are the same thing?
A.
Yes.
Q.
At least as they pertain to SWAT?
A.
As it pertains to the Sheriff's Office.
rank of commander.
deputy chief, and so forth.
GB
OW
.C
OM
142
We don't have the
11
and then chief?
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
In any of those promotions did you ever receive any
14
training about how to supervise deputies?
15
A.
No, sir.
16
Q.
So you never received any training about how you might deal
17
with somebody who was presenting the problems that Deputy
18
Armendariz was presenting?
19
A.
Correct.
20
Q.
21
appropriate to refer someone under your command for an Internal
13:28:08
TH
E
OF
13:28:21
13:28:37
IE
Did you ever have any training about when it might be
Affairs investigation?
A.
No, sir.
24
Q.
So you've never had such training?
25
A.
Correct.
FR
23
And so now you went from commander to being deputy chief
FO
Q.
ND
We only have sergeant, lieutenant, captain,
10
22
13:27:56
13:28:54
143
Q.
Affairs for an investigation?
A.
I absolutely have.
Q.
Have you ever referred anyone under your command for an
Internal Affairs investigation?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you do that at HSU?
supervised HSU?
A.
I don't recall.
10
Q.
That's fair enough.
11
don't have any recollection of it?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
When you did refer someone for Internal Affairs
14
investigation it was just based on your own assessment of how
15
egregious the conduct was that you became aware of?
16
A.
17
inquiry that was a fact-finding mission that resulted in
18
something that was egregious enough that should go to Internal
19
Affairs.
20
Q.
21
one that you would have initiated in your role as a supervisor?
Did you do that when you
I -- I don't know if I did or didn't.
13:29:28
TH
E
FO
But at least as you're here today, you
13:29:39
ND
OF
Which was usually predicated on some sort of administrative
A.
All right.
And the administrative inquiry would have been
13:29:57
They typically -- if it's a deputy, it's typically the
immediate supervisor who would then initiate the administrative
FR
23
13:29:10
IE
22
Have you ever referred anyone within the MCSO to Internal
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
report.
25
Q.
All right.
So it wouldn't necessarily have been you.
It
13:30:17
144
might have been their immediate supervisor, but there immediate
supervisor would bring you into the loop, so to speak?
A.
At some point, yes.
Q.
And at some point you, as the supervising officer, would
make the determination, based on, I guess, your own feel and
experience, whether you thought it should be referred Internal
Affairs?
A.
That's -- yes.
Q.
Because I think I'm not misstating, you've never had any
GB
OW
.C
OM
training about when something should be referred to Internal
11
Affairs and when it shouldn't be?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
I'm a little bit hazy, and you'll forgive me, but you were
14
having Deputy Armendariz record, video record all of his stops
15
at some point.
16
But Deputy Armendariz at some point was directed to videotape
17
all of his stops.
18
A.
19
made aware or saw the first video, then obviously I was aware
20
of the fact that he was in fact videotaping those things.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
13:30:59
Is that your understanding?
ND
I don't know if he was directed to do so, but once I was
All right.
13:31:27
When you saw the first video, were you made
aware of whether or not that was a video that was made by

Deputy Armendariz himself, or whether he was directed -- or
FR
23
And when I say "you," I guess I don't mean you.
IE
22
13:30:42
FO
10
13:30:30
24
whether or not that video came from a dash cam placed in his
25
MCSO vehicle?
13:31:52
A.
first one I saw I believe included a dash cam and eyeglasses
that had camera capabilities.
Q.
reviewed, I think the one -- I think that was the one involving
the woman that you said you didn't see any problem with?
A.
Q.
You saw videotapes of -- that resulted from the dash cam in
Deputy Armendariz's vehicle and from his eyeglasses?
All right.
My knowledge of the very
GB
OW
.C
OM
The answer, sir, would be both.
145
And so even in that very first video that you
A.
And, I'm sorry, in the video it -- in his view, in Deputy
11
Armendariz's view with the eyeglass camera, I could see a dash
12
mounted camera as well.
13
actually came from the dash camera.
TH
E
So I don't know if any of the video
In other words, I don't think he utilized the dash
15
camera for that traffic stop, that it was, rather, from his
16
eyeglass camera.
17
Q.
18
the second video, whether or not the video that you viewed,
19
whether it was one or both, was a video that was prepared at
20
the direction of MCSO and with MCSO equipment, or whether it
21
was Deputy Armendariz's personal equipment?
IE
ND
Did you ascertain when you reviewed that first video, or
A.
13:33:12
I don't remember if I inquired as to whether it was
personally owned or office-issued.
FR
23
13:32:50
OF
14
22
13:32:31
FO
10
13:32:13
My recollection is is that
24
the eyeglass cameras were personally owned, from what I recall.
25
Q.
I understand that you have that understanding now.
Do you
13:33:46
know when you got that understanding?
A.
I would say at the time that I viewed it.
Q.
All right.
viewed was an eyeglass view?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And you don't recall whether or not there was also a
dashboard camera view?
A.
was utilized.
GB
OW
.C
OM
So you believe that the very first video you
All right.
And did you have any idea whether the dashboard
11
camera belonged to MCSO or whether it belonged to Deputy
12
Armendariz?
13
A.
I have no idea.
14
Q.
The second video that you viewed, eyeglass view?
15
view?
16
A.
17
not a hundred percent certain.
18
Q.
19
viewed the second video whether or not Deputy Armendariz was
20
videotaping his own stops?
21
A.
13:34:15
Both?
TH
E
FO
Q.
Dashboard
Do you remember?
OF
I don't remember.
13:34:30
I want to say it was a dash cam, but I'm
ND
Did you have an -- did you have any idea by the time you
13:34:54
I would say yes.
IE
Q.
You indicated that prior to -- to talking -- prior to
receiving the May 14th instruction from Chief Deputy Sheridan,
FR
23
13:34:03
There was a dashboard camera there, but I don't think it
10
22
146
24
you had been in the room reviewing additional behavior, at
25
least two stops by Deputy Armendariz, I think you indicated the
13:35:19
147
first of which you would -- you were shocked and surprised by.
Or I don't -- I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I
gathered that you thought it was a very unacceptable stop.
A.
the other was a domestic violence situation.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And not to correct Your Honor, one was a traffic stop and
Correct.
Thank you.
That was your testimony.
The first one I think you said was the traffic stop?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And that was when there was a woman driving and a man in
the passenger seat.
11
video footage.
12
I think that I may have seen that same
I think maybe it was played for me on May 14th.
That was the stop that you thought was problematic?

A.
Yes, sir.
14
Q.
Do you recall whether that was eyeglass or dash cam?
15
A.
I recall that as being eyeglass.
16
Q.
All right.
17
that video would have been Deputy Armendariz's personal video,
18
correct?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
Trowbridge, Lieutenant Sousa, Lieutenant Jakowinicz, that
TH
E
13
13:36:07
OF
And so you would have known at that time that
ND
Yes, I believe so.

13:36:26
IE
Were you ever informed by, I don't know, Sergeant
Sergeant Armendariz was having all of his stops videotaped in

order to monitor, within the division, his stops and his
FR
23
13:35:48
FO
10
22
13:35:39
24
behavior?
25
A.
I recall having had a conversation with -- and I'm sorry, I
13:37:16
148
don't know if it was Lieutenant Jakowinicz or Lieutenant
Sousa -- that because he had been receiving complaints, that he
was recording his traffic stops to prove or disprove the
allegations that were being leveled against him.
Q.
That he personally was doing that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you have any explanation for why there was a dash cam in
Deputy Armendariz's -- or at least one of the vehicles that he
was using?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
No, sir, I do not.
11
Q.
Do you have any knowledge whether HSU, as a practice, had
12
its officers videotape their stops?
13
A.
At some point they began utilizing cameras for their work.
14
Q.
Do you recall what point that was?
15
A.
I'm sorry, I don't.
16
Q.
Was it 2010?
17
A.
I apologize, Your Honor.
18
have a time reference.
19
Q.
20
in connection with this underlying lawsuit or any other time,
21
whether you had any documents, videos, or anything else that
TH
E
OF
It's been so long, I really don't
ND
I think if I understood correctly, nobody ever asked you,

13:38:44
might be responsive to requests received from the plaintiffs in

this lawsuit?
FR
23
13:38:23
IE
22
13:37:53
FO
10
13:37:40
24
A.
Correct.
25
Q.
Did you ever receive such a request?
13:38:58
A.
Only recently.
Q.
As in the last six months?
A.
Yes, sir.
4
5
THE COURT:
Thank you.
THE WITNESS:
THE COURT:
Did you have any additional questions in
MR. POCHODA:
10
Very briefly, Your Honor.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
11
BY MR. POCHODA:
12
Q.
13
did provide to all HSU deputies a Scorpion body or glass cams
14
starting in 2009, is that correct?
15
A.
Yes, sir.
16
Q.
And that is your understanding, is that right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And then those were turned in when people left HSU, is that
19
correct?
20
A.
21
they would have taken them to their next assignment.
TH
E
We discussed at your deposition that at some point the MCSO
OF
13:39:32
ND
If you know.
I believe they would have turned them in.
I don't know if
13:39:42
I don't
believe they would, is what I'm saying.

Q.
FR
23
13:39:19
IE
22
13:39:10
light of those questions?
Thank
FO
Those are my questions.
you very much.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Trombi-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 149
And you indicated in response to the judge that you
24
yourself have not had any training in when matters should be
25
referred to IA or anyone else at the MCSO, is that correct?
13:40:00
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Are there, whether it's the IA or other divisions or units
within the MCSO that would have better been able to handle
issues of behavioral problems or perhaps emotional problems?
Has that ever come up in your experience at the MCSO better
than commander without any training?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What units are those?
A.
That would be the what was formerly Internal Affairs
GB
OW
.C
OM
investigation and now Professional Standards Bureau.
11
Q.
12
the past referred matters to the IA, generally after someone --
13
this was not necessarily just you, because you did not recall
14
that -- someone under your command had found some cause of
15
concern for a particular deputy, is that correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
And in this case, in our discussion of Deputy Armendariz,
18
in fact, a number of people did find cause of concern for the
19
practices and procedures, and perhaps even emotional state of
20
Deputy Armendariz, is that correct?
21
A.
13:40:53
OF
TH
E
And you indicated that you had at some points in
ND
Q.
13:41:10
Yes.
And yet despite that, based on the fact that he said to
you, "I'm going to do better now," you decided to reinstate
FR
23
Correct.
IE
22
13:40:34
FO
10
13:40:21
24
him, is that correct?
25
A.
I decided to put him back on the road with HSU, yes.
13:41:26
Q.
And again, why did you not refer him at that point to IA,
who were better equipped to see if some additional
interventions were necessary?
A.
those investigations that were conducted were found -- or were
unfounded and didn't occur, or they -- they were unfounded, so
there was no -- there was nothing so egregious that it would
have been forwarded to Internal Affairs.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Because to my knowledge, those administrative inquiries or
11
anything real?
12
A.
13
enforcement and military that transferring an individual who
14
has an issue doesn't solve the problem, it doesn't fix it.
15
would expect that the commanders and the supervisors address
16
those issues and fix it.
17
Q.
18
whatever unit you're in.
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
21
could indeed spread the problem, isn't that right?
24
25
Is that your point?
OF
TH
E
Sir, it's my experience in over 31 years between law
I
13:42:21
But there are some issues that require intervention
Would you agree with that?
And the fact of transferring a problem to another unit just
IE
A.
FR
23
13:42:03
FO
recommendation that he be transferred from HSU was based on
ND
You didn't think that Lieutenant Jakowinicz's strong
10
22
13:41:41
Yes.
MR. POCHODA:
THE COURT:
No further questions.
Ms. Iafrate.
13:42:33
Trombi-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 152
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
tape-record his traffic stops?
A.
No.
Q.
So when the judge was referring to "you," he didn't mean
you, Chief Trombi; he was referring to someone in the office?
A.
to put words in his mouth, either.
Chief, did you ever order or direct Deputy Armendariz to
I don't know what the judge was referring to.
THE COURT:
Thank you.
BY
12
MS. IAFRATE:
I don't want
Q.
14
Armendariz to record his traffic stops?
15
A.
16
discussed, yes.
17
Q.
What year?
18
A.
And I'm sorry, not a clue.
19
Q.
Was there any sort of policy in HSU regarding recording
20
traffic stops?
21
A.
13:43:21
ND
OF
I do have a recollection of that, that being said or
13:43:40
IE
I believe their standard operating procedure manual
addressed the use of the Scorpion body camera.

Q.
FR
23
13:43:15
Were you aware that someone at MCSO directed Deputy
TH
E
13
22
13:42:58
FO
10
11
GB
OW
.C
OM
Were you involved in drafting that standard operating
24
procedure?
25
A.
No.
13:43:57
Q.
There's been -- have you ever worked in PSB or IA?
A.
I have not.
Q.
There's been some conversation from Mr. Pochoda regarding
reinstating Deputy Armendariz.
reinstatement, was it?
A.
Not reinstatement, no.
Q.
What was your decision regarding Deputy Armendariz?
A.
My decision was to allow him to remain operating within
Human Smuggling Unit.
GB
OW
.C
OM
That wasn't your decision,
Q.
11
determination was because the memos from Lieutenant Jakowinicz
12
and the others talked about some complaints that were deemed
13
unfounded, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Did you consider at least the complaints themselves when
16
you were making a determination of how to handle Deputy
17
Armendariz?
18
A.
19
to be able to definitively say.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
13:44:44
ND
I may have, but I don't recall what those allegations were
Well, you know that he had several complaints, correct?
13:44:59
Yes.
Q.
And that was one of the things that you and he discussed?
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And following your discussion with him as someone that was
25
in the chain of command, you determined to return him to HSU,
FR
23
13:44:26
IE
22
One of the reasons that you said that you made that
FO
10
13:44:14
13:45:11
correct?
A.
That is correct.
Q.
Did you get permission from Sheriff Arpaio to do that?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you get permission from Chief Deputy Sheridan to do
that?
A.
No, ma'am.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
11
MR. WALKER:
12
THE COURT:
sir.
All right.
14
Next witness.
15
MS. WANG:
16
THE CLERK:
24
25
Brett Palmer.
B-r-e-t-t, P-a-l-m-e-r.
ND
Raise your right hand.
(Brett Palmer was duly sworn as a witness.)

FR
23
THE CLERK:
IE
22
13:45:40
Please state your full name for the record
THE WITNESS:
19
21
Thank you,
and spell your first and last name.
18
20
You may step down.
Your Honor, plaintiffs call Brett Palmer.
OF
17
13:45:30
No questions at this time, Your Honor.
TH
E
13
Nothing, Your Honor.
FO
MR. COMO:
13:45:21
Nothing further.
Thank you.
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
May I proceed, Your Honor?

You may.
13:46:44
Palmer - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 155
BRETT PALMER,
having been first duly sworn by the Clerk to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as
follows:
GB
OW
.C
OM
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Good afternoon, Sergeant Palmer.
A.
Good afternoon.
Q.
Are you employed by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?
10
A.
I am.
11
Q.
What's your current assignment?
12
A.
I am the District 3 detective supervisor.
13
Q.
Between April of 2008 and May of 2012, what was -- were you
14
also at MCSO?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And what was your assignment then?
17
A.
I was the supervisor on one of the HSU interdiction street
18
teams.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
ND
Were there two such street teams?

There were, yes.
13:47:37
And who was your direct commander while you were at HSU?
A.
Lieutenant Joe Sousa.
Q.
And who was above him in the chain of command?
24
A.
Chief Dave Trombi and Chief Brian Sands.
25
Q.
Thank you.
FR
23
13:47:26
IE
22
13:47:15
FO
13:47:50
Sergeant, on December 23rd of 2011 were you a sergeant

at HSU?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you become aware that this federal district court
issued a preliminary injunction order on December 23rd, 2011?
A.
Yes.
Q.
When did you become aware of it?
A.
I don't recall specifically when, but it was pretty
immediate following the judge's decision.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Q.
Would it have been the same day or perhaps the day after?
11
A.
It could have been.
12
Q.
In that time range?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And how did you learn about the preliminary injunction
15
order?
16
A.
17
an e-mail.
18
disseminated to the HSU staff via Lieutenant Sousa.
19
Q.
20
command?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
I recall reading the order.
I believe I saw
I believe it was
ND
So you heard about it through your chain of

13:48:45
Yes.
IE
22
13:48:25
I don't have a clear recollection of how.
All right.
Q.
You did not learn about it through the news, for example?
A.
No.
24
Q.
All right.
25
injunction order yourself, is that correct?
FR
23
13:48:16
FO
10
13:48:03
Sir, you said that you read the preliminary

13:48:52
A.
Yes.
Q.
Based on your reading, did you think that MCSO needed to
take any action to implement that preliminary injunction order?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What did you think needed to happen?
A.
I personally felt that we should have been disseminating
information and training immediately through the chain of
command down to all the deputies in the districts.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And did you believe that MCSO-wide, deputies should be
informed of the Court's preliminary injunction order?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
You did not think that the preliminary injunction order
13
affected only HSU, is that right?
14
A.
No, ma'am, that's correct.
15
Q.
You believed that deputies assigned to the Patrol division
16
also needed to know about the order, is that right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Now, after you learned of the preliminary injunction order,
19
did you receive any instructions to prepare any materials for
20
such a training on the order?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
ND
OF
13:49:30
13:49:47
Yes, I believe I did.
IE
Q.
FR
23
13:49:21
FO
10
22
13:49:03
All right.
MS. WANG:
I'd like to show the witness an exhibit
that is already admitted, Exhibit 189.

THE COURT:
You may do so.
13:50:03
MS. WANG:
And if we could also have that published on
the screens.
GB
OW
.C
OM
THE COURT:
If you put it up, we'll publish it.
MS. WANG:
And I'd like to go to the last page of Exhibit 189.
Second-to-last page, please.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
document, do you recognize that?
Okay, Sergeant.
Looking at the earliest e-mail on this
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Is that the direction that you just referred to in your
12
testimony?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
All right.
15
next e-mail in the chain.
TH
E
I'd like to scroll up to the beginning of the

It will be on a previous page.
Previous page, please.
17
And one more.
18
Do you see at the very bottom of this page there
There you go.
appears that there's an e-mail from you to Lieutenant Sousa
20
dated January 19, 2012?
ND
19
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
FR
25
13:51:22
Do you see that?
IE
21
24
13:50:58
OF
16
23
13:50:47
FO
10
22
13:50:24
And why don't we turn to the following page.

And could I have -- does the witness have a paper copy
of Exhibit 189?
Why don't you refer to that, sir.
13:51:34
Taking a look at that e-mail that you sent to

Lieutenant Sousa, can you describe what that is?
A.
provide to Lieutenant Sousa to submit up the chain of command
for implementation, training implementation across the whole of
the office.
Q.
And did you personally draft this material?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did you consult with anyone else in drafting that e-mail?
10
A.
I don't have any direct recollection of it, but I could
11
have consulted with Sergeant Trowbridge, who was my
12
co-supervising partner at the time.
13
Q.
14
draft was based on your reading of the preliminary injunction
15
order?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Was it based on any other input?
18
A.
No, ma'am, not to my recollection.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
heading Scenario 1 and highlight that.
13:52:02
FO
13:52:16
13:52:34
OF
TH
E
Is it fair to say that your understanding resulting in your
ND
Let's scroll down to the paragraph that has the

13:52:45
Sir, why don't you take a moment just to reread that.
Let me know when you're ready.

A.
I'm ready.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
the preliminary injunction order required that if an MCSO
FR
23
They are a list of training scenarios that I was asked to
IE
21
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sergeant, is it fair to say that you understood that

13:53:10
deputy had only suspicion that an individual was an
undocumented immigrant, but no probable cause to believe that
that person had committed a crime, that the order required that
person to be released?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And that's what you drafted the training scenario to
reflect, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And would that information have constituted a change from
GB
OW
.C
OM
how MCSO had previously been working?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And as you said before, you believed it was necessary to
13
train agency-wide on this new learning, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Sir, sometime prior to the Court's order of December 23rd,
16
2011, were you familiar with something called the LEAR protocol
17
or the LEAR policy?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
That had been in effect for some years before December of
20
2011, correct?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
13:54:17
Yes.
Q.
Can you briefly describe what that policy required.
A.
The LEAR policy was named after Immigration Customs
FR
23
13:53:58
IE
22
13:53:43
FO
10
13:53:27
24
Enforcement's LEAR unit, which stood for Law Enforcement Agency
25
Response.
It was a policy of the Sheriff's Office that
13:54:33
directed deputies in the field how to handle situations like
this one prior to the December 23rd, 2011, court order, when
they came across a person that they had reasonable suspicion to
believe was in the country illegally, but absent any other
criminal factors for the state law.
Q.
situation?
A.
at their detention removal office, or CBP, Customs and Border
GB
OW
.C
OM
And what did the policy require deputies to do in that
Contact -- detain the individual, contact an ICE official
Patrol, to have them ascertain further if the person was in
11
fact an illegal person in the United States, and then at the
12
direction of the CBP officer or the ICE agent, transport that
13
person to into their custody.
14
Q.
15
to maintain detention of the person pending the determination
16
of immigration status from the federal agency, is that correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Sir, were all MCSO deputies in the Patrol Division trained
19
on the LEAR policy?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
And to be clear, the LEAR policy required the MCSO deputy
ND
OF
13:55:26
Yes.
13:55:42
IE
And indeed, did MCSO have a specific radio code that
deputies used to call in when they encountered someone

suspected of being illegally in the United States?
FR
23
13:55:09
FO
10
22
13:54:52
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
What was that?
13:55:59
A.
712I as in "Ida."
Q.
And so if a deputy encountered someone that he or she
suspected of being an undocumented immigrant -- an undocumented
immigrant, they would call dispatch and announce that radio
code, is that correct?
A.
Yes, absent other criminal factors.
Q.
All right.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Now, did you believe that the preliminary injunction
order prohibited the conduct that had been required under the
LEAR policy?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
I believe the words you used were that it represented a
13
180-degree shift, is that right?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And is that one of the reasons why you believed that
16
training immediately needed to be put out to implement the
17
Court's preliminary injunction order?
18
A.
TH
E
ND
MS. WANG:
In fact, let's call up Exhibit 156, which
is in evidence already.
21
the witness.
FR
23
IE
20
22
24
25
13:56:42
OF
Yes.
19
13:56:31
FO
10
13:56:14
THE CLERK:
MS. WANG:
go back to 189.
And if I could have a paper copy for
13:56:58

I apologize.
We can actually use -- let's
My apologies.
Going back again to the third-from-the-last page,
13:57:31
let's highlight the first paragraph after "Lieutenant Sousa."
Up at the top, please.
Thank you.
GB
OW
.C
OM
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
sentence in the paragraph that follows Lieutenant Sousa.
wrote:
Deputies as the focus."
So, Sergeant Palmer, I'll call your attention to the last
What did you mean by that?

A.
I meant that it was for the Patrol deputies who had been
trained in the LEAR policy, the LEAR protocol, to provide them
11
with instruction on how this 180-degree shift would now affect
12
them in the field.
13
Q.
And that would include deputies outside of HSU, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
All right.
TH
E
13:58:26
I also want to highlight the third line below that,

under Training Directive.
You wrote:
"It is important the
18
Deputies and the Supervisors understand the scope to which they
19
are empowered to act in these scenarios, as limits have
20
recently been set by Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court
21
case."
22
ND
17
IE
OF
16
13:58:11
FO
10
13:58:46
Did you see that?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Did you believe that to be true upon your reading of the
25
preliminary injunction order?
FR
23
13:57:58
"Also note, I created these scenarios with Patrol
8
9
You
13:58:54
A.
Yes.
Q.
Now, sir -- we can take that down.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sergeant, after you drafted these training materials,
did you continue to communicate with Lieutenant Sousa about the
proposed materials?
A.
Yes.
MS. WANG:
All right.
Now let's call up Exhibit 156,
and we'll highlight just the top e-mail in this.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Do you recognize that e-mail dated March 27th
11
from Joe Sousa to Brett Palmer?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
All right.
14
after drafting the training materials with Lieutenant Sousa?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
So is it fair to say that by March 27th, 2012, your
17
proposed training had not been implemented?
18
A.
That's correct.
19
Q.
Now, do you have an understanding about what steps needed
20
to be taken in order to implement your proposed training
21
materials at MCSO?
13:59:44
14:00:08
IE
ND
OF
TH
E
And was this one of the communications you had
A.
Yes.
Q.
What were those steps that needed to happen?
24
A.
A Briefing Board or other written dissemination, and a
25
comprehensive training curriculum, either through E Learning or
FR
23
13:59:28
FO
10
22
Okay, sir.
13:59:08
14:00:23
in-house at our training center.
Q.
training materials agency-wide on his own?
A.
No.
Q.
What would he have needed to do in order to make that
happen?
A.
our chain above us.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Could Lieutenant Sousa have decided to put out your
Forward it through the chain of command to the chiefs in
Okay.
Did you also believe that an attorney needed to
review your training scenarios?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Did you have an idea of which attorney should do that?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Who was that?
15
A.
Mr. Tim Casey.
16
Q.
Okay.
17
been involved in putting out this proposed training?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
How would they have been involved?
20
A.
21
curriculum.
TH
E
14:00:57
ND
OF
And would the training division of MCSO also have
They would have been required to create the training
14:01:08
IE
Q.
Sir, is it true that no version of your proposed training
on the preliminary injunction order ever took place at MCSO?
FR
23
14:00:49
FO
10
22
14:00:36
24
A.
I don't know that that's true, no.
25
Q.
Okay.
Well, did you -- let me go back to this.
14:01:28
You transferred out of HSU in April of 2012, correct?
A.
May of 2012, ma'am.
Q.
May of 2012.
GB
OW
.C
OM
By the point that you transferred out of HSU, had any
training on the judge's preliminary injunction order gone out
MCSO-wide?
A.
Not to my recollection.
Q.
After you transferred out of HSU and before the judge --
let me go back.
Were you familiar with the judge's May 2013 trial
11
ruling in this case?
12
A.
I believe so, yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
May of 2012 and May of 2013, were you aware of any MCSO-wide
15
training on the judge's preliminary injunction order?
16
A.
17
not.
18
that I went through sometime later -- I believe it was Sergeant
19
Allen Goodman who actually put it on the training -- referenced
20
scenarios similar to these or identical, but I don't know when
21
that occurred.
TH
E
14:02:16
OF
I have a recollection personally of an E Learning course
ND
Q.
Okay.
14:02:37
Do you know if that training reflected information
about racial profiling as well?
FR
23
Between the time that you transferred out of HSU in
I don't know, ma'am, if it occurred in that time frame or
IE
22
14:01:56
FO
10
14:01:45
24
A.
I don't recall.
25
Q.
All right.
To your knowledge, was there ever a training
14:02:47
that went out MCSO-wide that was specific to the judge's
December 23rd, 2011, preliminary injunction order?
A.
Not that I can recall sitting here today, ma'am.
Q.
And to your knowledge, was there any notice that the
judge's preliminary injunction order had issued that went out
through a Briefing Board?
A.
Not to my recollection as I sit here today, no, ma'am.
Q.
Sir, you were directly involved in an effort to put out
some training on the judge's preliminary injunction order,
GB
OW
.C
OM
correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Based on your direct involvement in that process, do you
13
have an opinion about why the training did not take place as
14
you drafted it?
15
A.
An opinion?
16
Q.
Yes, sir.
17
A.
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q.
Can you please tell us what that is.
TH
E
OF
14:03:41
MS. IAFRATE:
Foundation,
ND
19
speculation, and calls for opinion testimony from this lay
21
witness.
24
25
THE COURT:
14:03:49
I am going to require you to lay more
foundation before I'm going to allow an opinion, Ms. Wang.
FR
23
IE
20
22
14:03:30
FO
10
14:03:14
MS. WANG:
BY MS. WANG:
Yes, Your Honor.

14:04:00
Q.
Sergeant, you drafted some training materials on the
judge's preliminary injunction order, is that right?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
You discussed your proposed training with your lieutenant,
Lieutenant Sousa?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Are you aware of conversations that he had with his chain
of command about this training, proposed training?
A.
Not directly aware, no, ma'am.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
refer to your paper copy, sir.
GB
OW
.C
OM
FO
Let's go back and look at Exhibit 189.
12
And you can
Let's go to the third page of the PDF file.
14
that e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to Tim Casey, dated January
15
24th, 2012.
TH
E
highlight -- sorry, the previous page.
Let's highlight -- yes,
Do you see that, Sergeant?
17
A.
Yes, ma'am, I do.
18
Q.
Okay.
19
have Mr. Casey review the draft that you had put together?
20
A.
21
Q.
ND
Yes, he was carbon copied on the e-mail.
14:05:00
And were you aware that Lieutenant Sousa was attempting to
have an attorney review your proposed draft?

A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Were you also aware that Lieutenant Sousa tried to follow
25
up with his chain of command to make this training happen?
FR
23
So you're aware that Lieutenant Sousa attempted to
IE
22
14:04:46
OF
Okay.
14:04:18
Let's
13
16
14:04:07
14:05:16
A.
Not directly, but certainly through the e-mail chain I
can -- I can tell that, yes, ma'am.
Q.
about this proposed training?
A.
direct conversations as I sit here today.
Q.
you were still in communication with Lieutenant Sousa about the
proposed training?
Okay.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Did you have conversations with Lieutenant Sousa
Yes, I believe I likely did, but I don't recall those
And we saw with Exhibit 156 that as of March 27th, 2002,
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
So is it fair to say that you were familiar with efforts
12
that Lieutenant Sousa was making to have the proposed training
13
take place, is that correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
All right.
16
reasons why the training did not take place?
TH
E
OF
So again I'll ask you:
MR. COMO:
18
THE WITNESS:
17
24
25
THE COURT:
14:05:56
Objection, foundation.
I'm not aware of specific reasons --
No, sir.
THE WITNESS:
When there's an objection, you

14:06:10
My apologies, Your Honor.
I'm going to overrule the objection to the
question as asked.
FR
23
Are you aware of
need to wait until I rule on it.
IE
22
THE COURT:
ND
19
21
14:05:45
FO
10
20
14:05:28
The question was, sir:
the training did not take place?
Are you aware of reasons why

14:06:30
THE WITNESS:
The answer to the question is I'm not
specifically aware of a specific reason the training did not
take place.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
training did not take place?
A.
No.
Q.
Did you receive any information about why the training did
not take place?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Were you made generally aware of any reasons why the
A.
Not specifically, no, ma'am.
11
Q.
Did you form an opinion -- withdrawn.
12
Do you have an opinion sitting here today, and I want

a yes or a no answer, do you have an opinion sitting here today
14
about why the training that you proposed did not take place?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
What's the basis for having that opinion, without stating
17
it?
18
A.
19
anecdotal conversations with colleagues, with Lieutenant Sousa,
20
and my knowledge and experience in the Human Smuggling Unit
21
over four years.
OF
14:07:12
14:07:29
IE
ND
Experiences through the whole of my entire career,
Q.
And did you have a reason to have an opinion about this
training situation with the training materials, based on all of
FR
23
TH
E
13
22
14:06:51
FO
10
14:06:41
24
that experience at MCSO?
25
A.
Yes.
14:07:44
Your Honor, I would ask the witness again
whether he could state what his opinion was.
MR. COMO:
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
Same objection, Your Honor.

I'll allow it.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
training never took place?
A.
It was contrary to the goals and objectives of the sheriff.
Q.
Sergeant, did you ever have an argument with the sheriff
Sergeant, what's your opinion about why the proposed
that related to the content of the judge's preliminary
11
injunction order?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
When did that take place?
14
A.
Near the end of December 2012, possibly into January
15
2013 -- I'm sorry.
16
2012 is the corrected statement.
17
very shortly following the judge's order on December 23rd,
18
2011.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
14:08:55
I'm not sure when, but it was
OF
Near the end of December 2011, into January
ND
So roughly within a month of the judge's order?

Yes, ma'am.
Can you describe what happened leading to that
IE
Okay.
14:09:10
argument.
A.
FR
23
14:08:36
FO
10
22
14:08:09
The HSU interdiction teams were conducting interdiction on
24
known human smuggling groups on highway.
A vehicle stop had
25
been made of a suspected human smuggling load vehicle.
In the
14:09:28
course of investigation from the stop it was determined that
there was strong reasonable suspicion, even probable cause, to
believe it was violating the state human smuggling statutes,
and in accordance with training and information we received
through the MCSO chain of command, as well as the Maricopa
County Attorney's Office, we detained the entire occupants in
the vehicle, removed them to our Enforcement Support Division
for continued investigation.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Let me stop you there, Sergeant.
To clarify, there were a number of occupants of that

vehicle that was stopped, is that right?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did you have -- on the scene -- were you present at the
14
stop?
15
A.
16
but Sergeant Trowbridge was also working that night, so I don't
17
recall which one of us was actually on scene with it.
18
likely could have been.
19
that would reflect that.
20
Q.
21
A.
I be -- I know I was supervising the stop,
14:10:17
I very
And there would be a police report
ND
OF
I don't recall.
TH
E
11
But you were certainly involved in this investigation?
14:10:33
IE
Yes.
Q.
Personally.
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
investigation, whether the deputies on the scene of the stop
FR
23
14:10:06
FO
10
22
14:09:51
Are you aware, based on your involvement in the

14:10:43
had probable cause to believe that all of the occupants of the
vehicle had committed a crime under Arizona state law while
they were on the scene?
A.
No, ma'am, I can't state a "yes" answer to that, no.
Q.
Okay.
the occupants of the vehicle there was not probable cause to
believe that they had committed a crime, but there was
suspicion that they were illegally in the United States?
Well, is it your understanding that as to some of
MS. IAFRATE:
10
THE COURT:
11
THE WITNESS:
Overruled.
13
smuggling statutes, and in accordance with training and
14
direction we received, we continued the investigation in the
15
detainment to allow us to continue the investigation.
16
BY MS. WANG:
17
Q.
18
stop was it your understanding that some of the occupants of
19
the vehicle were merely suspected of being illegally in the
20
United States, but there was not probable cause to believe that
21
they had committed a crime on the scene of the stop?
OF
TH
E
reasonable suspicion for a violation of the state human
14:11:34
At the scene of the
14:11:49
IE
ND
Well, sir, I'm going to ask you again.
A.
I'm sorry, ma'am, as far as the actual stop location's
concerned, I don't know.
FR
23
14:11:15
My recollection is that we had strong
12
22
14:11:00
FO
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
Q.
Sir, do you recall testifying about this incident during
25
your deposition?
14:12:24
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
I'm just going to read to you your testimony.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Actually, we can call it up.
This is the April 7th,
2015, Deposition of Brett Palmer, on page 57, starting at
line 13.
6
7
And if we can show that.
Sir, this is your testimony.
Once at the Enforcement
Support Division, my recollection --
MS. IAFRATE:
we're starting with an answer.
Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but

Could we -- for the rule of
inclusion, could we start with the question that he's
11
responding to?
12
THE COURT:
You may.
question, Ms. Wang, please.
14
MS. WANG:
BY MS. WANG:
16
Q.
If we can go back up to the
TH
E
13
15
Yes, sir.
14:13:16
OF
So I asked you during your deposition, starting at line 5:
17
"So the policy that HSU was applying at that time is

if you have reasonable suspicion that an individual may be
19
violating a state criminal statute, you can transport them to
20
Enforcement Support to continue the investigation?"
ND
18
14:13:29
And you answered "yes," is that correct?
IE
21
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then you continued:
FR
23
14:13:06
FO
10
22
14:12:46
"Once at the Enforcement Support
24
Division, my recollection is that it was early on, whether we
25
stopped it early afternoon or whatever, but it was early on in
14:13:42
the day and we're going into the early evening hours.
completing an investigation, in talking to all the passengers
and conducting the investigation, we determined that there was
going to be roughly three-quarters of the load vehicle, is my
recollection, was going to be able to make state charges."
Do you see that, sir?
After
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
Yes.
Q.
So isn't it true that the other one-quarter of the
passengers you could not make state charges on, correct?

A.
After continued investigation, yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
would not have been probable cause to believe that as to the
13
one quarter of the occupants that they had committed a state
14
crime.
15
A.
Yes, ma'am, that would be accurate.
16
Q.
All right.
TH
E
And on the scene of the stop, obviously, there also
Thank you for clearing that up.
So you had been in the middle of telling the story

about what happened.
You -- HSU deputies took the entire
19
vehicle load full of people back to the Enforcement Support
20
office, is that correct?
21
A.
ND
18
14:14:49
IE
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
We processed the load vehicle, which would have involved
FR
23
14:14:31
OF
17
22
14:14:15
FO
10
14:14:02
What happened next?
24
numerous interviews, interviews with every occupant.
25
Interviews are lengthy, and depending on the size of the actual
14:15:03
vehicle and people contained, can take several hours.

Upon completion of that is when we determined there
would be three to five individuals that would not be able to
meet criteria for state charges for one reason or another, that
there was no probable cause existing for their charging in the
human smuggling statute under state law.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I moved -- with accordance to instructions I had
received, I moved to move those three to five individuals on
their way, not detain them any longer, because I no longer had
the authority to do that.
11
I had been given instruction that the HSU would

continue doing business in the same manner we had, in that come
13
this point in the investigation of a human smuggling load
14
vehicle, we would turn any people that we were not able to make
15
state charges on over to the custody of Immigration and Customs
16
Enforcement or Customs and Border Patrol.
17
Q.
18
had those people been in custody of MCSO?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
A.
OF
14:16:00
At that point, how long
Let me break in their, Sergeant.
ND
Anywhere from a few hours to several hours.

Okay.
Thank you.
Please continue.
14:16:14
IE
In accordance with my duties and responsibilities and
directions I had received, I contacted detention removal office

for ICE in downtown Phoenix, which I had done on numerous
FR
23
TH
E
12
22
14:15:41
FO
10
14:15:20
24
occasions in the past over the four years I was in the unit,
25
and this was the first time that ICE DRO had refused to accept
14:16:34
individuals from us following Judge Snow's order on December
23rd, 2011.
GB
OW
.C
OM
It put me in a little bit of a situation because these
individuals did not have any clothing but the ones on their
back; they did not have any money; they didn't have jobs; they
didn't have any family in the state of Arizona.
recollection is there was at least one or two females, a couple
of small children, and possibly another male.
event, what am I supposed to do with these individuals?
My
But in any
Q.
11
Phoenix that they would like to go to?
12
A.
13
the detectives asking that, no.
14
Q.
15
correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Okay.
18
A.
Because ICE DRO had refused them, I was able to identify
19
Customs and Border Patrol in Casa Grande at their Casa Grande
20
station.
21
one of the individuals, that the -- they were going to be
14:17:16
TH
E
I don't recall asking that question specifically or any of
OF
And you had originally called ICE pursuant to HSU protocol,
Please go ahead.
ND
Sorry to interrupt.
14:17:32
14:17:47
IE
At night a CBP officer had verified, in talking with
illegal aliens in the United States and had instructed me that,

yes, they would accept them from us if I would provide
FR
23
Sir, did you ask any of them whether they had family in
FO
10
22
14:16:58
24
transportation.
To that end, I instructed one of our detention
25
officers assigned to the unit to drive them to the Casa Grande
14:18:09
Border Patrol station where we would turn them over to their
care.
Q.
Enforcement Support to CBP's Casa Grande office?
A.
At least an hour, maybe two.
Q.
Okay.
officer to transport these individuals to CBP?
A.
responsibilities, my lieutenant, Joe Sousa, and informed him of
GB
OW
.C
OM
About what's the -- what's the transit time from
What happened after you directed the HSU detention
I contacted, in accordance with my duties and
the situation.
11
Q.
And what happened during that conversation?
12
A.
I advised Lieutenant Sousa that ICE DRO had refused them,
13
that they were going to be going to Customs and Border Patrol.
14
He was agreeable to that.
15
scenario, and our conversation ended.
TH
E
He had no problems with that, that

14:19:03
I then received a phone call back from Lieutenant
OF
16
Sousa.
As customary for him, he would have reported it up the
18
chain of command to Chief Trombi and/or Chief Sands.
19
Lieutenant Sousa called me back and advised me that I needed to
20
call Sheriff Arpaio directly on his cell phone, that he was
21
requiring a briefing directly from me regarding this -- this
IE
ND
17
14:19:22
incident.
FR
23
14:18:44
FO
10
22
14:18:24
The incident was significant because it was the first
24
time, again, that DRO had refused individuals from us following
25
Judge Snow's order.
14:19:39
Q.
Had ICE refused to accept suspected undocumented immigrants
from MCSO before Judge Snow's December 2011 order?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
with Lieutenant Sousa?
A.
not feel comfortable doing that.
it seemed to me he was following his orders by telling me to
contact the sheriff.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And what happened next with this conversation
My recollection is I advised Lieutenant Sousa that I did
It seemed to me he was not --
He provided me the sheriff's cell phone
number, and I proceeded to my office at the Enforcement Support
11
Division where I made the contact.
12
Q.
And did you call Sheriff Arpaio?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
What happened during that conversation?
15
A.
I spoke to the sheriff; he was on speakerphone in my
16
office.
17
Trowbridge, and at the time it was Deputy Gonzalez, he's now a
18
sergeant, was also present for some portion of this
19
conversation, if not all of it.
TH
E
OF
I advised the sheriff very succinctly and directly of
14:20:43
IE
the situation, and that these individuals that I was turning

over to Customs and Border Patrol was happening, and why it was
happening.
FR
23
14:20:22
And I recall that for a short time Sergeant
ND
20
22
14:20:13
FO
10
21
14:19:55
24
Q.
25
you?
Did you -- and what happened in that -- did he respond to

14:20:59
A.
Yes, he responded.
Q.
What did he say?
A.
The sheriff took a very authoritative stance with me and
told me that I was not to release those individuals, that I
would maintain custody of those individuals and hold them at
the Enforcement Support Division pending his arrival.
Q.
Did you respond?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What was your response?
10
A.
I told the sheriff immediately that that was an unlawful
11
order and I was not going to follow it.
12
Q.
13
order?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And what happened next during that conversation?
16
A.
The sheriff became argumentative with me and again
17
attempted to direct me to maintain custody of those individuals
18
pending his arrival for an immediate briefing.
19
Q.
20
his order violated a federal court order?
21
A.
FO
14:21:22
TH
E
OF
14:21:32
ND
So he did not acquiesce when you told him that you believed
Okay.
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
Can you tell me about the rest of the conversation.
25
A.
In short, I stuck my ground with the sheriff on an unlawful
FR
14:21:52
Not immediately.
Q.
23
14:21:11
Did you tell him that it would violate a federal court
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
Did there come a time when he did, finally?
14:22:03
order that I felt I was being given, and contrary to what I
understood at the time reference Judge Snow's order from
December 23rd, 2011.
GB
OW
.C
OM
The conversation in totality couldn't have lasted more
than a couple minutes, maybe five minutes, and the sheriff,
eventually, when I wasn't giving ground, he backed down and
instructed me to just provide him with photographs of those
three to five individuals.
Q.
Was it standard HSU procedure to photograph individuals who
were not being charged with any crime?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
And did you cause the photographs to be taken?
13
A.
At the time, I did not want to be in an argument with the
14
sheriff, and it seemed like a reasonable method for me to
15
discontinue the conversation, which was uncomfortable, and move
16
these individuals on their way.
17
detention officer to take the photographs.
18
Q.
19
individuals?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
14:22:56
So, yes, I did instruct the
ND
Did you know why he wanted photographs of these
No, ma'am, I do not.
14:23:08
IE
You mentioned that the sheriff became argumentative with
you while you were having this telephone conversation.
Can you
tell me why you had that feeling that he was being
FR
23
14:22:38
FO
10
22
14:22:23
24
argumentative?
25
A.
I don't know why the sheriff was being argumentative.
14:23:25
Q.
What I mean is, was it something about his tone of voice?
What gave you the impression that he was being argumentative?
A.
have on numerous occasions needed to take an authoritative
stance of my own with subordinates to direct an order, to move
an investigation forward that is not moving sufficiently or
fast enough that it needs to be, so I'm familiar with that tone
or that rhetoric that gets used.
rhetoric that the sheriff employed.
It was his tone of voice.
GB
OW
.C
OM
It was the -- as a supervisor, I
This is the same tone and
Q.
Did he raise his voice with you on the phone?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Sir, I'm going to show you -- actually, this is not yet
13
admitted, but it has been stipulated to by all parties.
14
is Exhibit 103.
TH
E
15
THE COURT:
OF
103?
This
Is there a stipulation with respect to
17
MS. IAFRATE:
18
THE COURT:
14:24:38
From me, Your Honor, yes.
103 is admitted.
ND
19
MS. WANG:
21
please.
22
IE
20
And can we publish that on the screens,
14:25:07
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Sir, do you -- Sergeant, do you see Exhibit 103?
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Okay.
FR
23
14:24:05
FO
10
16
14:23:46
First, can you explain what a Briefing Board is?
14:25:13
A.
A Briefing Board is a quick method of dissemination of
policies and information that is critical to employees of the
office in -- to know in the performance of their duties.
Briefing Boards have the full effect of policy.
Q.
And does this go out agency-wide?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And it reads:
11
Sheriff Arpaio, effective immediately, no MCSO personnel shall
12
detain any person for turnover to ICE unless probable cause to
13
arrest or detain exists under Arizona Criminal Law."
GB
OW
.C
OM
So you see this one as dated May 28th, 2013,
By order of
Do you see that?

A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Sir, to your knowledge, before May 28, 2013, did any
17
Briefing Board with that statement ever go out to MCSO?
18
A.
Not to my knowledge.
19
Q.
Sergeant, during the period between December 23rd, 2011,
20
when the judge issued his preliminary injunction order, and
21
your departure from HSU in May of 2012, sitting here now are
14:26:02
14:26:24
IE
ND
OF
15
you aware that MCSO was in violation of that preliminary

injunction order?
FR
23
14:25:44
FO
"Message From the Sheriff.
TH
E
14
22
14:25:35
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
And was it in violation of the order?
14:26:39
A.
Was it in violation of the order?
Yes.
Q.
All right.
responsible for the violation of the Court's order?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What is that view based on?
A.
The view is based on my experience, my time in the HSU,
interactions with the MCSO chain of command.
Q.
working on those proposed training scenarios?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sir, do you have a view about who was
And is it based on -- in part, on your experience in
A.
Yes, that, too.
11
Q.
Is it also based in part on your interaction with the
12
sheriff considering -- relating to that particular human
13
smuggling investigation?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And can you state what your view is about who is
16
responsible for the violation of the Court's preliminary
17
injunction order?
22
TH
E
OF
ND
THE COURT:
I'll overrule it and I will accept the
14:27:36
testimony for what it's worth.
FR
23
Objection, Your Honor, foundation as to
opinion testimony.
IE
21
MS. IAFRATE:
14:27:25
18
20
14:27:16
FO
10
19
14:26:58
You may answer.

THE WITNESS:
My opinion on who's ultimately
24
responsible is the sheriff.
25
BY MS. WANG:
14:27:53
Q.
Sergeant, is it your view, based on your years in service
at MCSO, that there are certain prevailing rules that deputies
follow about their duties toward the sheriff?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do any of those prevailing rules have to do with media and
the MCSO?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you tell what -- tell me, please, what's that
prevailing rule at MCSO.

A.
That it's our duty to make the sheriff look good in the
11
media and to the public.
12
Q.
TH
E
Is that fair to say that MCSO personnel are generally
14
very aware that the sheriff is very concerned about media
15
matters?
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
16
Objection, Your Honor, speculation as to
Sustained.
THE COURT:
BY MS. WANG:
20
Q.
21
that you -- based on your conversations on the subject?
ND
19
14:28:56
IE
Sir, are you aware of prevailing views among MCSO personnel
A.
Yes.
Q.
And have you talked to your fellow MCSO personnel about
FR
23
14:28:51
what others know.
18
22
14:28:29
Is it fair to say that the sheriff -- withdrawn.
13
17
14:28:11
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
this prevailing direction that deputies try to make the sheriff
25
look good in the media?
14:29:21
A.
Yes.
Q.
Are you aware that there is awareness among MCSO personnel
about this -- that the sheriff is very concerned about his
media image?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to sustain that.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
frequently spoke -- frequently speaks publicly in the media
Sergeant, are you aware personally that the sheriff
about MCSO's immigration work?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
To your knowledge, is that known among other MCSO
13
personnel?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And have you heard the sheriff express views that he
16
disagrees with the federal government's policies on
17
immigration?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And did you hear the sheriff making such statements of
20
disagreement with federal immigration policies after the Court
21
issued its preliminary injunction order?
TH
E
ND
OF
14:30:01
14:30:18
IE
A.
Yes.
Q.
And do you know whether others at MCSO were also aware of
FR
23
14:29:52
FO
10
22
14:29:34
24
those statements by the sheriff?
25
A.
Yes.
14:30:32
Q.
directly with the sheriff?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you describe the frequency with which you did.
A.
Perhaps once a month, once every couple months, half dozen,
dozen times a year, somewhere around that, on that order.
Q.
HSU's activities while you were there?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Do you know whether it was the sheriff's idea to create
11
HSU?
12
A.
I don't know whose idea it was.
13
Q.
Well, are you aware that the sheriff was very interested in
14
having HSU be a part of MCSO?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Are you aware of a decision to make the Human Smuggling
17
Unit into the Human Smuggling Division?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Did that happen in about 2009?
20
A.
21
Q.
14:31:22
OF
TH
E
FO
14:31:08
ND
Yes, roundabout.
14:31:40
And do you know why that decision was made?
A.
Specifically, no, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
FR
23
14:30:50
Is that fair to say that the sheriff was very involved with
IE
22
Sir, while you were assigned to HSU did you interact
GB
OW
.C
OM
I believe you testified during your deposition about
24
a reason why the switch was made from unit to division.
25
A.
Yes.
14:31:53
Q.
What was that -- what was that based on?
testimony based on?
MS. IAFRATE:
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
Objection, Your Honor, speculation.
Sir, do you know -- sorry.
THE COURT:
What was your
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to allow the answer without
prejudice to a reassertion of the objection once I hear the
answer.
"What was your deposition testimony based on?" I

believe was the question.
11
THE WITNESS:
My deposition testimony was based on
conversations I had had with Lieutenant Sousa and others in the
13
MCSO, particularly the HSU unit and the HSU chain of command.
14
BY MS. WANG:
15
Q.
16
others in the chain of command had gotten the information
17
directly from the source?
18
A.
I'm not -- "the source"?
19
Q.
Did they receive any information from the sheriff about
20
changing HSU to the Human Smuggling Division?
21
A.
24
25
14:32:40
ND
OF
And was it your understanding that Lieutenant Sousa and
14:32:56
IE
That's my understanding, yes.

MS. WANG:
Okay.
So Your Honor, I would ask the
witness again if he knows why HSU was changed from a unit to a
FR
23
TH
E
12
22
14:32:21
FO
10
14:32:07
division.
THE COURT:
You may answer it.
I don't hear an
14:33:17
objection.
THE WITNESS:
My understanding is it's because the
GB
OW
.C
OM
sheriff wanted a division versus a unit.
me that a division had better media appeal than a unit.
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
the HSU, the sheriff expressed views to HSU's internal chain of
command about what HSU should be doing?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Sir, was there a point in time where your chain of command
11
made suggestions to HSU about activities that you didn't agree
12
with?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
Can you give me an example of such an occasion.
15
A.
Based on complaint letters from the public, for an example,
16
individuals hanging around a store owner's property, maybe not
17
committing trespassing on that particular store owner's
18
property, but on an adjacent property.
19
reference people that were -- appeared to be of Hispanic
20
descent just lingering or loitering in the area.
22
And is that fair to say that while you were a sergeant in
14:34:08
And the complaint was
ND
OF
TH
E
FO
14:33:46
14:34:33
Ultimately, there was nothing criminal about the onset
of that, but we would be directed to look into the matter, and

to that end, Lieutenant Sousa and -- would discuss it with the
FR
23
14:33:34
IE
21
It was explained to
24
sergeants about how best to implement that while staying within
25
the confines of the law, which typically amounted to
14:34:55
surveillance efforts.
Q.
those directions from the chain of command?
A.
Yes, on occasion we did, yes.
Q.
Were there other activities that the chain of command
suggested to HSU that concerned immigration enforcement that
you didn't quite agree with?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you describe some of -- some of those.
10
A.
Fairly early on in my career I was approached by Lieutenant
11
Sousa and asked to look into, for the sheriff, that the sheriff
12
wanted to do immigration roadblocks.
13
provide a -- I was asked to provide a legal opinion, which was
14
inappropriate, but I was asked to -- I was given an order to
15
provide some input on that.
TH
E
17
Lieutenant Sousa with information and case law that absolutely
18
stipulated we could not do immigration roadblock enforcement.
19
I do recall that was passed up the chain of command and we
20
never participated in any type of immigration roadblock
21
enforcement, but that's an example of another thing we were
14:35:51
IE
ND
OF
I conducted some brief research and provided
14:36:06
asked to do.
Q.
FR
23
14:35:20
And I was asked to
16
22
14:35:08
FO
GB
OW
.C
OM
And did you undertake surveillance efforts in response to
Okay.
So to sum up, there were occasions on which the
24
chain of command requested that HSU take on enforcement
25
activities that you did not agree with, correct?
14:36:21
A.
Yes.
Q.
And sometimes you complied and sometimes you did not.
that fair to say?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
Is
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to turn to a different subject.
In May of 2014, what was your assignment at MCSO?
A.
May of 2014 I was the detective supervisor for District 3.
Q.
That's your current position?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
All right.
11
from your chain of command to gather video recordings that you
12
had ever made of traffic stops?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
How was that order conveyed to you?
15
A.
My recollection is it was through an e-mail that was
16
disseminated via Chief Trombi through the chain of command.
17
captain at the time was Captain Van Ausdale.
18
disseminated that to me and that's how I received it.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
Q.
14:36:48
14:37:02
My
He would have
OF
TH
E
FO
And in May of 2014 did you receive any orders
ND
And did you respond to that request or that order?
Yes.
14:37:22
All right.
MS. WANG:
Exhibit 176.
FR
23
Okay.
IE
22
14:36:29
24
BY MS. WANG:
25
Q.
I'm going to ask the witness to be shown
This is not in evidence.
Okay, sir.
Go ahead and take a look at Exhibit 176 and let
14:37:56
me know if you recognize that.
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
What is it?
A.
This is the memorandum that I completed in accordance with
the directive via e-mail from Chief Trombi reference the
recordings.
MS. WANG:
GB
OW
.C
OM
Your Honor, I'd ask that Exhibit 176 be
admitted in evidence.
MS. IAFRATE:
Your Honor, if I just may have a minute.
I believe that this is a portion of an exhibit that's already
11
in evidence that was entered through Chief Trombi, if I could
12
just find the number.

THE COURT:
14
MS. WANG:
Go ahead.
TH
E
13
Maybe I can help.
I believe Ms. Iafrate is
referring to Exhibit 154.

MS. IAFRATE:
Yes, that is correct.
14:38:52
So if the
question is "Any objection?" no, but just for the record, so
18
that we have it clear, this is a portion of Exhibit 154, which
19
is in evidence.
20
22
24
25
Any other objections?
MR. COMO:
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
17
ND
OF
16
14:38:28
FO
10
15
14:38:17
None.
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
14:39:04

BY MS. WANG:
14:39:15
Q.
So, Sergeant, I want to ask you a few questions about this
memo and the matters that you describe in it.
GB
OW
.C
OM
First, is everything in this memo accurate, as far as
you know?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
All right.
containing a total of 17 video recordings, is that correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And is it fair to say that 17 video recordings would not
According to this memo you turned in three DVDs
reflect all of the traffic stops you've ever participated in
11
while you've been at MCSO?
12
A.
That's correct.
13
Q.
It's actually a very minute fraction of all the traffic
14
stops you've ever participated in, is that right?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
Is it also true that you have not recorded every traffic
17
stop that you've participated in while at MCSO?
18
A.
That's true.
19
Q.
Now, did you leave any -- let me ask you this:
20
recordings that are reflected in Exhibit 176, were those
21
duplicate copies of recordings that were saved at HSU?
TH
E
Of the 17
IE
ND
OF
14:39:54
A.
Some of them may be, yes, ma'am.
Q.
Well, I should ask you this:
FR
23
14:39:42
FO
10
22
14:39:24
14:40:16
Is it fair to say that some
24
of the recordings that are reflected here occurred while you
25
were at HSU?
14:40:42
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And others occurred after you left HSU?
A.
Yes.
Q.
All right.
were at HSU have been retained at HSU after your departure?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So these, looks to me like DVD 2 and DVD 3, were copies of
some of the stops you made while you were at HSU.
to say?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Would the recordings that were made while you
Is that fair
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
Would those have been duplicate copies of something that
12
was retained at HSU?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
All right.
15
participated in thousands of traffic stops over the course of
16
your career at MCSO?
17
A.
Yes, I would say that's fair.
18
Q.
When you left HSU, can you describe for me what recordings
19
of traffic stops you left there.
20
A.
21
HSU, we were provided with hard drives, external hard drives,
TH
E
Is it fair to say that you probably
ND
OF
14:41:30
14:41:48
IE
At some point later on, near the end of my -- my term in
and we were given a standard operating protocol to, as we

recorded video and traffic stops and during HSU missions, we
FR
23
14:41:17
FO
10
22
14:40:58
24
would download those recordings to the hard drives.
When I
25
left HSU, I turned over custody of that hard drive to my direct
14:42:11
replacement at HSU.
Q.
not record every traffic stop you ever made?
A.
That's correct, yes.
Q.
So the collection of recordings you left on that external
hard drive would not have reflected every traffic stop you ever
made while at HSU?
A.
No, it could not have.
Q.
And in fact, you were issued two separate video recording
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sir, is it fair to say that while you were at HSU you did
devices while you were at MCS -- at HSU, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
That's reflected in Exhibit 176?
13
A.
Yes, ma'am.
14
Q.
It's the second bullet point on the first page, sir?
15
A.
Yes, ma'am.
16
Q.
So you had a Scorpion body-mounted camera, is that correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And then you also had an eyeglass-mounted camera, is that
19
correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
ND
Yes.
In the third paragraph under that you write:
14:43:10
Due to the
limited recording space, limited battery life, notoriously

unexpected failures of the devices, no assigned MDC or laptop
FR
23
14:42:59
IE
22
14:42:45
FO
10
14:42:26
24
to transfer files in field to free up recording space, or
25
charge the devices, and the lack of any specific policy,
14:43:32
statute, or case law governing the use of the devices, I did
not record traffic stops routinely from beginning to end, and I
did not routinely impound or otherwise administratively retain
recorded traffic stops that did not somehow present themselves
as being significant, either stemming from a legal matter or an
anticipated complaint.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Do you see that?

A.
Yes.
Q.
Was that accurate?
10
A.
Yes, ma'am.
11
Q.
All right.
12
there was no governing policy that required you to record every
13
traffic stop, correct?
14
A.
That's correct.
15
Q.
And in fact, you didn't have the capacity to do that with
16
the devices you were given?
17
A.
That's correct.
18
Q.
And so you had to be selective in which stops you recorded,
19
correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
ND
OF
14:44:09
That's correct.
14:44:20
And is it fair to say that on occasion, while you were on
patrol during a given shift, your memory might be full on your

recording device, is that right?
FR
23
So is it fair to say that while you were at HSU
IE
22
14:43:56
FO
14:43:49
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Did you ever have occasion to delete files on your
14:44:32
recording device so that you could record another incident
during your shift?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And is it fair to say that at least during some points
while you were at HSU, there was no written policy governing
what you did with those recordings after they were made,
correct?
A.
A written policy, no, ma'am.
Q.
Okay.
10
A.
Yes, there was a standard operating protocol that
11
Lieutenant Sousa had put out that to the best of our ability,
12
in accordance with what I stated in the paragraph in my
13
memorandum, we were to retain all of the recordings, record
14
every incident, record every traffic stop, all of our
15
encounters, both while working off duty outside of the unit and
16
while working in the unit, and again, retain that to the best
17
of our ability.
18
Q.
19
do, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
Was there any unwritten policy on it?
14:45:25
OF
TH
E
FO
14:45:08
ND
But as you just testified, that was actually impossible to
In totality, yes, ma'am, impossible.

Okay.
14:45:36
Did the unwritten protocol direct deputies as to
when they had to submit recordings of traffic stops to the

property and evidence division?
FR
23
14:44:54
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Did it give any direction to deputies on when they were
14:45:52
required to turn in copies of those recordings to the command?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
And that was what you just described?
THE COURT:
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
Ms. Wang.
Yes, sir.
so when you find a good time, let me know.
11
THE COURT:
12
MS. WANG:
13
(Recess taken.)
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. WANG:
16
THE COURT:
17
MS. WANG:
19
Exhibit 100.
24
25
15 minutes.
TH
E
Please be seated.
May I proceed?
15:04:53
Please do.
Your Honor, I'd like to show the witness
All parties have stipulated to the admission of

It is the Court's --
ND
objection.
Exhibit 100 is admitted, then, without
15:05:08
You may show it to the witness.
MS. WANG:
It is the Court's
February 12th, 2015 order relating to plaintiffs' discovery
FR
23
All right.
THE COURT:
IE
22
14:46:16
OF
Exhibit 100.
This is actually a good time.
18
All right.
FO
MS. WANG:
21
14:46:05
I'm just looking for an afternoon break,
10
20
GB
OW
.C
OM
requests, and I'd like to turn to the second page.

15:05:24
BY MS. WANG:
Q.
here?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Those were plaintiffs' requests for discovery which the
Court ordered defendants to produce.
is whether you were ever asked to search for the documents
described in categories A through E on page 2 of Exhibit 100.
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Is it true that you were not asked to do so until the first
11
part of your deposition on April 7?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did you finally have your documents searched on April 13th
14
of 2015?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And during that search -- well, first, who conducted that
17
search, sir?
18
A.
Sergeant Nick Schrey from the compliance division.
19
Q.
Is that the MCSO's court compliance division?
20
A.
21
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
My question to you, sir,
15:06:09
OF
TH
E
FO
15:05:54
ND
A.
him.
FR
23
15:05:34
Yes, ma'am.
15:06:24
Did anyone else participate in that search with Mr. Schrey?
IE
22
Sergeant, do you see the paragraphs labeled A through E
Yes, there was another sergeant from the same division with
I -- the name of the individual escapes me at this time.
24
Q.
All right.
And did the two sergeants from CCID search your
25
desktop computer at District 3 patrol's offices?
15:06:38
A.
Yes.
Q.
And is it true that they did not take any documents with
them as a result of that search?
A.
Yes, that's true.
Q.
Now, this computer that they searched, which is at your
District 3 office, was not the same computer you had while you
were at HSU, is that correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
You left that computer at HSU when you transferred out, is
GB
OW
.C
OM
that correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Do you know whether anyone has searched your computer to
13
search for documents listed in categories A through E in
14
Exhibit 100?
15
A.
I do not know.
16
Q.
Did you suggest to the sergeants from CCID that they make a
17
search of that computer?
18
A.
19
five computers removed at this point.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
All right.
Did they respond to that?
Not directly.
15:07:32
Just that they were following through with
the instruction that they were given.

Q.
FR
23
15:07:21
Not specifically, but I reminded them that I was four or
IE
22
15:07:03
FO
10
15:06:52
All right.
Did they indicate they would go and search your
24
past computers that'd used before your assignment to
25
District 3?
15:07:50
A.
They did not indicate that, no.
Q.
Sir, is it fair to say that while you were at HSU you might
have had other documents that related to the Court's
preliminary injunction order from December of 2011?
A.
Yes.
Q.
There might have been other documents other than the ones
we've seen today, Exhibits 156 and 189?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you believe that there are such documents that existed
GB
OW
.C
OM
at the time?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
There might have been e-mails between you and Lieutenant
13
Sousa on that subject?
14
A.
And others, yes.
15
Q.
All right.
16
kept a lot of records electronically while he was at HSU?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And, sir, at the time that you left HSU was it your
19
understanding that the document preservation notice for this
20
litigation was still in effect?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
OF
15:08:25
ND
Q.
15:08:43
Correct.
Well, let me back up.
Let me withdraw the
question.
FR
23
And is it fair to say that Lieutenant Sousa
I'm sorry, while at HSU?
IE
22
15:08:16
FO
10
15:08:05
Sir, while you were at HSU were you aware that HSU was
directed to save certain documents related to this litigation?
15:08:58
A.
Yes.
Q.
And were you -- did you have the understanding at the time
that you transferred out of HSU that that requirement was still
in place?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I'm going to change gears slightly.
regular practice of issuing a -- what's known as a DR number or
an IR number?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
So let me just sum this up to try to save some time.
11
fair to say that when an MCSO deputy is engaged in law
12
enforcement practices and needs to write a report, that he or
13
she would get a unique identifying number issued from the
14
communications division?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And that's referred to as a DR number or an IR number?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And a DR stands for "Departmental Report," is that correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
21
A.
Sir, does MCSO have a
15:09:25
15:09:43
ND
OF
TH
E
FO
It's
IR stands for "Incident Report," is that correct?
15:09:52
Yes.
Q.
Those two things mean the same thing, right?
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
All right.
25
records division will do a regular audit to make sure that a
FR
23
15:09:09
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
And is it a regular practice that MCSO's

15:10:05
report was turned in to match up with the number that was
assigned by the communications division?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And if any reports are missing, that the relevant commander
will be made aware of that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And would there be something called a missing DR list that
would be sent out to commanders?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
All right.
11
was a problem at MCSO with missing DRs that were not followed
12
up on in a timely fashion?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And is it true that at one point in time while you were at
15
HSU, if there was a missing DR, a deputy could respond to that
16
by filing something known as a DR taken in error face sheet?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Can you describe what that is?
19
A.
A DR taken in error face sheet is a single-page document
20
that we use to address matters where an IR number, DR
21
number has been issued inappropriately or mistakenly to an
15:10:32
15:10:57
ND
OF
TH
E
FO
While you were at HSU, is it true that there
15:10:22
15:11:15
incident.
FR
23
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
It's actually fairly common, in my opinion, over my
24
experience.
Communications division sometimes will
25
inadvertently assign a report number and there should not be
15:11:31
one.
The deputy may pull a report number and he didn't mean
to.
service as we complete the incident.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Some of this has to do with the way we code calls for
In the incidents that truly do not require an incident
report the DR taken in error face sheet would be used to
address that and solve the issue of records having something in
their files to address that report number.
division issues a number, it can't taken back in the -- in the
computer-aided dispatch system.
Once communications
10
Q.
11
of the time you were assigned to HSU, the practice was that
12
that missing -- withdrawn.
14
was that the DR taken in error face sheet would not require any
15
backup documentation?
16
A.
Initially, yes; it did change later on.
17
Q.
Right.
18
submit a piece of paper saying that DR number was issued in
19
error without any supporting documentation, is that correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
OF
15:12:22
ND
So at one point in time a deputy could simply
Yes.
15:12:39
And that practice was changed at some point, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Because it was seen as problematic that there was no
FR
23
Is that fair?
IE
22
15:12:00
Is it true that during your time at HSU, the practice
TH
E
13
And is it fair to say that during at least part
FO
All right.
15:11:46
24
documentation needed, is that right?
25
A.
Yes.
15:12:49
Q.
Otherwise, there would be no check on a deputy actually not
filing a departmental report when in fact one needed to be
submitted, is that correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Do you know when that policy changed?
A.
To the best of my recollection, somewhere in the
neighborhood of 2009, 2010, while I was at HSU, I believe.
Q.
Armendariz was a deputy there, is that correct?
All right.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Sergeant, when you were at HSU, Charley
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
You were not his direct supervisor, is that right?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
During part of the time that you were at HSU,
14
Sergeant Madrid was his direct supervisor, is that right?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And then when Sergeant Madrid was transferred out of HSU,
17
Sergeant Trowbridge became Deputy Armendariz's supervisor?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Is it true that you and your co-sergeant in HSU would often
20
co-supervise deputies?
21
A.
TH
E
ND
OF
15:13:35
15:13:49
Yes.
IE
Q.
So you had charge of a certain squad of deputies, but
during any given shift you might also functionally supervise
FR
23
15:13:22
FO
10
22
15:13:03
24
Sergeant Madrid's deputies?
25
A.
Yes.
15:14:01
Q.
Same with Sergeant Trowbridge?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Were you aware while Deputy Armendariz was assigned to HSU
that he had a high number of civilian complaints against him?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Were you aware of other issues with Deputy Armendariz?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What were those?
A.
They mainly all stemmed from complaint issues in his
GB
OW
.C
OM
traffic stops, and in his off-duty traffic stops that he was
11
conducting while assigned to the HSU.
12
Q.
Did you have an opinion -- withdrawn.

You were familiar with Deputy Armendariz's work.
TH
E
13
Is
14
that fair to say?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Do you believe that he exhibited any good qualities as a
17
deputy?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
What were those?
20
A.
21
charger.
OF
ND
15:14:55
He was somebody in the unit that we could rely on to
work hard out on interdiction patrols.

make traffic stops.
FR
23
15:14:48
Deputy Armendariz was what I would refer to as a hard
IE
22
15:14:30
FO
10
15:14:14
He was not afraid to
He was someone who had a high --
24
number-high record of human smuggling load vehicle catches,
25
which stems from the 20, 30, 40, 50 stops he would make in a
15:15:24
given interdiction patrol.
Q.
high number of traffic stops during a given shift?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And it was also true that overall, he later identified a
higher-than-normal number of load vehicles during his traffic
stops?
A.
Yes.
Q.
I believe you testified during your deposition that Deputy
GB
OW
.C
OM
Is it fair to say that Deputy Armendariz made an unusually
Armendariz was successful in identifying load vehicles, partly
11
because he had such a high volume of overall stops.
12
fair to say?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
I believe you said that was a numbers game?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
All right.
17
that on occasion Chief Sands or Chief Trombi would notify HSU
18
that your numbers were down and you needed to increase them.
TH
E
Is that
15:16:06
OF
You mentioned during your deposition as well
20
MS. IAFRATE:
MS. WANG:
Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
Withdrawn.
Let me ask it this way.
15:16:30
IE
21
apologize.
BY MS. WANG:
FR
23
15:15:55
Do you recall that testimony?
ND
19
22
FO
10
15:15:40
24
Q.
Did you ever receive word from HSU's chain of command that
25
HSU's arrest numbers were down?
15:16:42
A.
Yes.
Q.
And were you given instructions about what to do about
that?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What were those -- what were you told to do?
A.
When HSU would have lulls and our arrest numbers were down,
we would be asked, or even at times instructed through the
chain of command, to begin interdiction patrols to produce
arrest numbers, particularly arrests for the human smuggling
GB
OW
.C
OM
state statutes, is what was being sought.
11
Q.
12
of command that your arrest numbers were down, that would
13
include arrests under the Arizona state human smuggling
14
statute?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
It also included arrests of suspected undocumented
17
immigrants, isn't that right?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
That would also count towards the arrest numbers, as far as
20
the chain of command was concerned?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
15:17:33
ND
Q.
15:17:43
Yes.
And when you say "chain of command" in this context, you
mean Chief Sands and Chief Trombi?
FR
23
And is it fair to say that when you were told by your chain
IE
22
15:17:20
FO
10
15:16:50
24
A.
Yes, and to include the sheriff.
25
Q.
All right.
You also just testified that Armendariz had
15:17:58
negative qualities as a deputy.
Is that your assessment?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Can you describe those.
A.
In short, he was a supervisory nightmare.
good-quality deputy you could put on the road, hard charger,
was not afraid to work.
complaints that came in on him on a regular basis was very
quickly becoming difficult to justify managing him in the unit.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
He was a
But at the same time, the number of
Are you aware of any steps that HSU command, local command,
I mean Lieutenant Sousa or a sergeant in HSU, took to address
11
that volume of civilian complaints against Deputy Armendariz?
12
A.
13
believe factually that Sergeant Trowbridge did do this through
14
Lieutenant Sousa, that we attempted to have him transferred on
15
a number of occasions.
16
Q.
17
any other steps to deal with the civilian complaints against
18
Deputy Armendariz?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
It's my recollection that both Sergeant Madrid, I know -- I
15:19:06
ND
Yes.
OF
Did any HSU lieutenant or sergeant, to your knowledge, take
What were those steps?
15:19:18
IE
At one point before the Scorpion cameras and the eyeglass
cameras, Lieutenant Sousa ordered, through our grant funding, a

dash-mounted camera.
FR
23
15:18:41
FO
10
22
15:18:20
Deputy Armendariz was specifically taken
24
out of an unmarked vehicle and placed into a fully marked
25
vehicle for his take-home vehicle, and the dash-mounted camera
15:19:39
was given to him and he was instructed, through Lieutenant
Sousa to Sergeant Madrid, to record all of his traffic stops
and impound the tapes.
the division or through evidence I don't know, but that was one
action that was taken.
Q.
to record all of his traffic stops?
A.
the eyeglass cameras came that we were required to record all
GB
OW
.C
OM
Whether that was administratively at
So it's your impression that Deputy Armendariz was required
Yes, in the same context that when the Scorpion cameras and
stops.
11
Q.
12
with the Scorpion brand body-mounted camera that it was
13
physically impossible to record all stops during a given shift,
14
is that right?
15
A.
That's right.
16
Q.
Would that have applied to Deputy Armendariz after he was
17
directed to record all his traffic stops?
18
A.
19
system that he had or its recording capacity.
20
to the Scorpion video cameras and the eyeglass cameras.
21
Q.
OF
TH
E
But you testified earlier that based on your own experience
15:20:34
I'm not familiar with the camera

I can only speak
ND
It likely should have.
15:20:48
IE
And again, he had a very high volume of traffic stops per
shift in general, correct?

A.
Correct.
24
Q.
Were any steps taken to ensure that Deputy Armendariz was
25
in fact turning in recordings of all of his traffic stops?
FR
23
15:20:21
FO
10
22
15:20:02
15:21:00
A.
I don't know.
Q.
Sir, do you think that -- well, are you aware that anyone
in HSU raised concerns about Deputy Armendariz with the chain
of command?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And was any action requested of the chain of command with
respect to Deputy Armendariz?
A.
Requested from the chain of command down to us?
Q.
No, from HSU sergeants and lieutenant up the chain of
GB
OW
.C
OM
command.
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And what was that request?
13
A.
We tried to have him transferred on at least one, if not
14
two or three occasions.
15
Q.
16
to the chain of command?
17
A.
18
Q.
Was anyone in HSU assigned -- withdrawn.
TH
E
S
ND
Was any sergeant in HSU assigned to do ride-alongs
with Deputy Armendariz to give him a greater degree of
21
supervision?
15:22:06
IE
20
A.
No, not to my recollection.
Q.
Sir, what was the response from the chain of command to
FR
23
15:21:47
OF
Were any other requests relating to Deputy Armendariz made
19
22
15:21:42
FO
10
15:21:21
24
HSU's request to transfer Deputy Armendariz out?
25
A.
It failed at the chief level.
15:22:24
Q.
Do you have an understanding as to why that happened?
A.
No, I do not.
Q.
Sir, were you ever given training while you were at HSU on
how to supervise deputies under your command?
A.
Specifically, no, I don't recall that.
Q.
I have just a few more questions.
gears here.
8
9
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm going to change
While you were at HSU -- let me narrow it down to the

2010-2012 time frame -- did you have a general understanding of
how IA investigations took place?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Did you have an understanding about who ultimately made a
13
decision as to the outcome of IA investigations?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Who was that?
16
A.
For minor discipline it would be the division commander.
17
Q.
And for major discipline?
18
A.
Major discipline was generally referred up the chain of
19
command to be decided on by the sheriff or his designee.
20
Q.
21
deputy's role was in IA investigations during the 2010 to 2012
TH
E
ND
OF
15:23:20
15:23:38
IE
And did you have an understanding about what the chief
time frame?
A.
Yes, he was the sheriff's designee.
24
Q.
So your understanding during that time was that Chief
25
Deputy Sheridan was it?
FR
23
15:23:10
FO
10
22
15:22:46
15:23:56
A.
there where Chief Scott Freeman was the designee, and then I
think even Chief Bill Knight took that over for some time, but
that was right around that same period.
Q.
you ever have a conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan about a
pending open IA investigation?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Is that investigation now closed?
10
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And just in the interest of saving time, let me try to
12
narrow down what this investigation was about.
13
concerning a joint investigation by HSU and ICE?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And is it true that the IA investigation essentially was
16
about a false statement that an HSU deputy had put in a
17
departmental report?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And the Maricopa County Attorney's Office prosecutor was
20
the one who discovered this and referred the matter for an IA
21
investigation, is that correct?
While you were at HSU, did
FO
So let me ask you this:
15:24:11
15:24:25
15:24:40
ND
OF
TH
E
Was this
A.
Yes.
Q.
And were there other members of HSU who were also named as
FR
23
Okay.
There was a time period
15:24:54
IE
22
Yes, that's my understanding.
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
principals, as investigative targets in that IA investigation?
25
A.
Yes.
15:25:08
Q.
Who were they?
A.
Myself, Sergeant Trowbridge, Lieutenant Sousa, Deputy Jesus
Cosme, Deputy Alejandro Ortega, and I believe Deputy Roland
Gonzalez.
Q.
that IA investigation?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Including both sergeants and the lieutenant of HSU?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And did there come a time when you -- well, let me add
11
this.
12
allegation that a tip was planted on MCSO's immigration
13
hotline?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
Let me ask you this:
16
conversation with Chief Deputy Sheridan about that
17
investigation while it was still open?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Can you describe that conversation?
20
A.
21
point.
22
15:25:26
15:25:34
FO
So several members of HSU were investigative targets in
TH
E
Is it also true that the IA investigation involved an
15:25:52
ND
OF
Did there come a time when you had a
I had already been transferred out of the unit at that
15:26:05
Not long after I had been transferred out the
investigation was still open; it had been nearing several

months that it had been open.
FR
23
GB
OW
.C
OM
IE
There was a training session at
24
the training center that occurred.
I was in attendance.
25
Sheridan was speaking at the training session.
Chief
15:26:25
As he left and departed the training room, I took it

upon myself for both myself and the benefit of the HSU members
who were under investigation, one of which was on
administrative leave for the last several months, I approached
Chief Deputy Sheridan, and I did not discuss the details of the
investigation, but I did ask that right, wrong, or indifferent,
discipline, no discipline, regardless of the outcome, if we
could have a resolution to the investigation rather than
letting it drag on and keeping a deputy sheriff on admin leave
GB
OW
.C
OM
and the rest of us in limbo with the outcome.
11
Q.
And did Chief Deputy Sheridan respond to you?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
What did he say?
14
A.
Chief Sheridan responded to me by saying pointedly I should
15
tell the deputy on admin leave that he had nothing to worry
16
about, that the investigation had passed 120 days, business
17
days, and that he could not perform major discipline to the
18
deputy if he wanted to at that point.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
expect -- I guess I expected more of a sternness from the chief
TH
E
OF
ND
Was there any more to that conversation after that?

Only my dumbfoundedness at the response.
I did not
15:27:37
deputy about it.

Q.
FR
23
15:27:18
IE
22
15:27:05
FO
10
15:26:45
And what was the outcome of that IA investigation
24
ultimately?
25
A.
I received minor discipline, a reprimand; I believe other
15:27:53
Palmer - Cross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 216
written reprimands were issued, but I'm not factually certain
on that; and the deputy on administrative leave was returned to
duty.
Q.
authored the departmental report with the false statement in
it?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Did anyone, to your knowledge, receive any major discipline
coming out of that IA investigation?
Was the deputy on administrative leave the one who had
No.
11
12
FO
A.
MS. WANG:
I have nothing further for you now.
you.
13
THE COURT:
14
CROSS-EXAMINATION
16
Q.
Good afternoon, Sergeant.
17
A.
Good afternoon, ma'am.
18
Q.
You're not happy with your career path at Maricopa County
19
Sheriff's Office, are you?
15:28:59
ND
OF
BY MS. IAFRATE:
20
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
IE
21
Objection, leading.
15:29:12
THE WITNESS:
To a certain extent, no, ma'am.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
FR
23
15:28:24
Ms. Iafrate.
15
22
15:28:13
Thank
TH
E
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
Q.
You were passed over for promotion to lieutenant on two
25
occasions, correct?
15:29:25
A.
Yes.
Q.
You don't think that's right, do you?
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Do you know why you were passed over for promotion?
A.
Factually, no.
Q.
When did you find out about the preliminary injunction?
came out December 23, 2011.
A.
Fairly immediately following the injunction issuance.
Q.
Do you think it would have been before the new year?
10
A.
I want to say yes.
11
Q.
You said on direct examination that you read it?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
Did someone provide it to you?
14
A.
That's my recollection, yes.
15
Q.
Who provided it to you?
16
A.
That, I do not recall.
17
Q.
Were you instructed to read it?
18
A.
I don't recall if I was instructed to read it; I just
19
recall reading it.
20
Q.
21
A.
15:30:00
TH
E
OF
15:30:13
ND
Did you understand it?
15:30:25
Yes.
Q.
Did you discuss it with an attorney?
A.
24
Q.
After you read it, what did you do --
25
A.
I con- --
FR
23
It
FO
My recollection is yes.
15:29:34
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
15:30:34
Q.
-- with the information that you had?
A.
I consulted with my superior, Lieutenant Sousa, my
co-supervisors, and received direction on how the Human
Smuggling Unit was to do business in accordance with this
Court's order.
Q.
conduct business pursuant to the court order?
A.
through the chain of command.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Who did you get that information from on how HSU was to
I don't really specifically, ma'am, just that it was
Q.
11
of command a chain because there are links going up, correct?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
So that the link closest to you, your direct report, would
14
be whom?
15
A.
Lieutenant Joe Sousa.
16
Q.
So would you have received that information from Joe Sousa?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
After you -- you read the preliminary injunction.
19
after that you yourself took it upon yourself to conduct
20
training, correct?
21
A.
15:31:07
TH
E
Sometime
ND
OF
15:31:19
15:31:38
Yes.
IE
Q.
In fact, you said that you conducted training for all
squads within HSU, correct?
FR
23
Well, when you say the chain of command, we call the chain
FO
10
22
15:30:52
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
No one told you not to do training, right?
15:31:49
Your Honor, I'm going to object to the
leading.
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
I'm going to allow it for the same reasons
I allow you to lead MCSO witnesses that are hostile, or
arguably hostile to you.
I'm going to overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS:
I'm going to allow some leading, so
The answer to your question, ma'am, is
no, nobody told me not to do the training.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
11
conducting training?
12
A.
Lieutenant Joe Sousa was, yes, ma'am.
13
Q.
Well, he's your chain of command, correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
These training scenarios that we looked at -- it's
16
Exhibit 189, and we're going to get to that in just a moment --
17
those weren't related to the training that you were doing in
18
HSU, correct?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
training scenarios that you and Lieutenant Sousa were kicking
15:32:18
TH
E
OF
15:32:26
What exhibits?
ND
I'm sorry.
The
15:32:43
IE
Show you what's Exhibit 189, which is in evidence.
back and forth, that wasn't the training that you were doing
for HSU, correct?
FR
23
And your chain of command was aware that you were
FO
10
22
15:32:06
24
A.
No, ma'am, not specifically.
25
Q.
Prior to conducting your training in HSU, did you generate
15:33:06
any curriculum?
A.
No, ma'am.
Q.
Were you the trainer?
A.
It was informal training at briefings.
the trainer, and I believe I was assisted by my co-sergeants.
Q.
Which would be who?
A.
At the time, Sergeant Trowbridge, Cesar Brockman, Deputy
Cesar Brockman.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Yes, ma'am, I was
You believed that training was necessary, and therefore you
took it upon yourself to conduct that training, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Now, Exhibit 189 is on the screen, it's in evidence, and
13
you were shown this during direct examination.
TH
E
14
Do you recall this?

A.
I do, yes.
16
Q.
Did you ever receive feedback from Tim Casey regarding your
17
training scenarios?
18
A.
Not to my recollection, no, ma'am.
19
Q.
As you sit here today, do you know if you received feedback
20
from Tim Casey?
21
A.
15:34:01
ND
OF
15
15:34:18
Not to my recollection as I sit here today, no, ma'am.
IE
Q.
Did you ever have a direct conversation with Tim Casey
regarding your training scenarios?
FR
23
15:33:41
FO
10
22
15:33:24
24
A.
I could have, but I don't recall that conversation.
25
Q.
When did you first meet Tim Casey?
15:34:34
A.
Possibly somewhere around 2010, 2011.
It was in reference
to other litigation that was occurring.
Q.
Did you have a conversation with him at that time?
A.
I'm sure I did.
Q.
And it didn't relate to Melendres?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
Well, you said "other litigation," right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So that would -- what I hear when you say that is
GB
OW
.C
OM
litigation other than Melendres, correct?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
I'm just trying to determine, Sergeant, that conversation
13
you're talking about in 2010-2011, did it relate to Melendres?
14
A.
15
Q.
When you read the preliminary injunction and were briefed
16
and had conversations with Lieutenant Sousa, one of the things
17
that you determined was that if there was no charge, then the
18
person should be immediately released, correct?
TH
E
15:35:17
OF
MS. WANG:
20
THE COURT:
Objection, compound.
THE WITNESS:
15:35:48
Yes.
IE
21
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
FR
23
There were a number of lawsuits filed against HSU.
ND
19
22
15:35:05
FO
10
15:34:53
Another thing was that you talked about on direct
24
examination was as long as you're still conducting an ongoing
25
investigation, you could continue to detain that person,
15:35:59
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then finally, if there was no state charge, the person
could be transferred to ICE or Border Patrol, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You know now that that's not accurate, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
But back when you read the preliminary injunction and
trained people at HSU, you were training regarding those
GB
OW
.C
OM
scenarios, correct?
11
A.
In conjunction with the instructions I received, yes.
12
Q.
My point is what you know now after all of this is
13
different than what you were training on back when you read the
14
preliminary injunction, correct?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Now, there was a -- you were asked to generate these
17
training scenarios, correct?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
By your chain of command?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
ND
Yes.
15:37:12
You also testified on direct examination that there was a
time where you were requested to give a legal opinion, correct?

A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And not to be too glib, you don't have a law degree,
25
correct?
FR
23
15:36:42
IE
22
15:36:27
FO
10
15:36:13
15:37:25
A.
That's correct.
Q.
But you did some research, right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And you generated a legal opinion, correct?
A.
No, ma'am, I didn't generate a legal opinion; I generated
information that I passed up my chain of command.
Q.
You passed that up to Lieutenant Sousa?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
And were you present when Lieutenant Sousa provided it to
GB
OW
.C
OM
anyone else?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Who are the attorneys for MCSO, generally?
13
A.
Over the last four, five years, Tim Casey, Tom Liddy,
14
yourself, and there's been one or two others that I've done
15
depositions with; I just can't recall their names right now.
16
Q.
17
doing legal research?
18
A.
No, ma'am.
19
Q.
And in fact, there's someone in the MCSO that has a law
20
degree that doesn't practice law.
21
MacIntyre prior to sending it up your chain of command?
TH
E
OF
ND
Did you run it by Jack
A.
I assume that would have been done through the chain.
Q.
My question was:
FR
23
15:38:16
You didn't ask any of them to pass judgment on your task of
IE
22
15:37:50
FO
10
15:37:33
Did you submit it to Jack MacIntyre for
24
review before sending it up the chain of command?
25
A.
No.
15:38:38
15:38:58
Q.
There was some -- well, let me just ask you this:
Can you
define for me what "strong reasonable suspicion" means?
A.
reasonable suspicion."
reasonable belief that facts, evidence, circumstances that a
crime is -- has occurred, is about to occur, or may occur, and
the more facts and evidence and circumstances is just simply my
terminology for strong reasonable suspicion, but in totality
real suspicion stands alone by itself.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Reasonable suspicion -- there is no definition for "strong

It's just proof that our reasons --
You have it or you
don't have it.
11
Q.
12
is synonymous with probable cause?
13
A.
No.
14
Q.
So Ms. Wang was asking you questions about an incident that
15
occurred where you were not at the scene.
16
on direct examination?
17
A.
I don't recall if I was or was not at the scene.
18
Q.
Do you recall if the people at the scene had reasonable
19
suspicion or probable cause?
20
A.
21
the other existed.
TH
E
15:40:12
OF
Do you recall that
ND
Q.
FR
23
So what you're saying is strong reasonable suspicion
That's my understanding, that one or both existed, one or
IE
22
15:40:01
FO
10
Okay.
15:39:36
15:40:29
Which one?
MS. WANG:
It's not clear,
24
reasonable suspicion of what, or probable cause to believe
25
what?
15:40:43
Can you establish that, please,
Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
GB
OW
.C
OM
THE COURT:
Sure, Your Honor.
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
me, direct examination -- where you were dealing with an
incident that occurred at an HSU interdiction in which you were
describing that there was strong reasonable suspicion or PC.
There was some discussion on cross-examination -- or excuse
Do you recall testifying to that?

A.
Yes.
11
Q.
What were you referring to when you were talking about
12
strong reasonable suspicion or probable cause?
13
A.
14
terminology, but real suspicion stands by itself.
15
trying to indicate is that the detective on scene at the
16
traffic stop had enough facts, articulable evidence,
17
statements, observations, to ascertain that a crime in human
18
smuggling was afoot, had occurred, was about to occur, was
19
occurring.
20
Q.
21
A.
All I'm
15:41:20
ND
OF
TH
E
Again, I apologize for the use of the word "strong" in that
For all individuals within that vehicle?
15:41:38
IE
That's my understanding, yes.
Q.
What do you base your understanding on?
A.
The fact that the individuals were transported back to the
FR
23
15:41:08
FO
10
22
15:40:49
24
Enforcement Support Division for continued investigation.
25
Q.
So one of your understandings regarding the preliminary
15:41:52
injunction was that if there was an ongoing investigation, the
person could continue to be detained, correct?
A.
MCAO, yes, ma'am.
Q.
MCAO, you're talking about the County Attorney's Office?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So that was your belief back then, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
You know that not to be accurate, correct?
10
A.
I do not believe that's accurate now, no.
11
Q.
When to your satisfaction the investigation was concluded
12
and you made a determination that there would not be charges
13
against three to five of the individuals, it was your decision
14
to then contact ICE to have them transported?
15
A.
My decision with instructions I'd received, yes.
16
Q.
And ICE refused to accept these individuals, correct?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
And so then you took it upon yourself to call Border
19
Patrol, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
15:42:49
ND
OF
TH
E
FO
15:42:19
Yes.
15:43:00
And you understand now that the holding of these
violates the preliminary injunction.
24
25
15:42:11
individuals for a period of time and the transport likewise
FR
23
Per instructions received through the chain of command at
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
Are you aware of that now?

Yes, that's my understanding.
15:43:11
Q.
You said that it wasn't highly unusual that you spoke
directly to Sheriff Arpaio, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
That was a bad question.
GB
OW
.C
OM
On occasion, you spoke to Sheriff Arpaio directly,
correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
So you would bypass certain people in your chain of command
and speak directly to the sheriff?

A.
I would not bypass them, no, ma'am.
11
Q.
You would be instructed to call him directly?
12
A.
Yes.
13
Q.
This call that you made you said between December 2011 to
14
January 2012, do you know where the sheriff was when he
15
received your call?
16
A.
No, I don't.
17
Q.
Do you know if he was in state or out of state?
18
A.
I presume he was in state, 'cause he was at the Enforcement
19
Support Division within an hour.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
How did you get his number?
15:44:18
Lieutenant Sousa provided it to me.

This interdiction that we were talking about previously
where you had the individuals transported back to the
FR
23
15:44:06
IE
22
15:43:47
FO
10
15:43:34
24
Enforcement Support building, was that the first time that ICE
25
refused to accept people that you called for them to transport?
15:44:47
A.
Yes, following the December 23rd, 2011, order.
Q.
Had you, HSU, anyone in your chain of command to you,
discussed -- discussed a backup plan prior to that date?
A.
Q.
You described the conversation that you had with Sheriff
Arpaio as being -- I cannot remember the adjective that you
used.
Were voices raised?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
And you stood your ground?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Ultimately, the sheriff conceded, correct?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And you had a plan in place to transport these to Border
15
Patrol, which you effectuated, correct?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
I want to show you what's in evidence as Exhibit 176.
TH
E
OF
This is something that you looked at on direct

examination, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
Yes, ma'am.
15:46:41
IE
This is an e-mail that you generated to Captain Van Ausdal,
correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Was this in response to a request to you?
25
A.
Yes.
FR
23
ND
19
22
15:45:41
18
15:45:31
FO
15:45:10
15:46:52
Q.
Who made the request?
A.
My recollection is the request came via e-mail from Chief
Trombi.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
In this memorandum -- well, let me back up.
It's dated May 19, 2014, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
It discusses videos that you were memorializing, correct?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
Q.
Prior to May 2014, did anyone request you to gather videos
or audios that you generated?
11
A.
No.
12
Q.
Prior to May 2014, you were aware that videos existed,
13
correct?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And, in fact, in October of 2009 you were deposed in this
16
case, correct?
17
A.
I don't recall.
18
Q.
I'm not going to hold you to the date.
19
several times, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
I probably was.
ND
You've been deposed
I've been deposed several times, yes.
15:48:01
And I wasn't at that deposition, was I?
A.
I don't recall you being there, no, ma'am.
Q.
During that deposition you discussed cameras used in HSU,
FR
23
15:47:33
IE
22
15:47:23
FO
10
15:47:03
24
didn't you?
25
A.
I may have.
15:48:12
Q.
Do you know, were there cameras at HSU in 2009?
A.
I believe so, yes.
Armendariz would have received his dash camera, and somewhere
around that same time he would have purchased the Scorpion
camera.
Q.
have a camera record all of his stops?
A.
No.
Q.
You were very briefly Deputy Armendariz's supervisor,
GB
OW
.C
OM
That was about the time that Deputy
Were you involved in the decision to have Deputy Armendariz
correct?
11
A.
Through co-supervision in the field, yes.
12
Q.
I think there was like a two-week period where you had to
13
accept responsibility until someone else came in, is that
14
accurate?
15
A.
16
period because Sergeant Madrid, for administrative matters, was
17
incapable of supervising Deputy Armendariz.
18
Q.
19
Sergeant Madrid and then Sergeant Trowbridge?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
There was a very brief week or two-week
15:48:59
OF
I apologize.
ND
But other than that he was -- he was charged to mostly
Yes.
15:49:19
IE
There was some discussion on direct examination that talked
about attempts to have Deputy Armendariz transferred.
Do you
recall that?
FR
23
15:48:48
FO
10
22
15:48:32
24
A.
Yes.
25
Q.
Were you involved with the discussions with Chief Trombi as
15:49:32
it related to Deputy Armendariz?
A.
No.
Q.
Sergeant Palmer, you know that when there is an IA pending,
you are not to discuss the IA, correct?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And yet you chose to do so, correct?
A.
I'm sorry, ma'am.
Q.
When you approached Chief Sheridan and asked him about an
open IA.
GB
OW
.C
OM
To what are you referring?
A.
I did not discuss the particulars of the IA with him.
11
Q.
So that's okay?
12
A.
My understanding, and what I've been told by Professional
13
Standards Bureau, is that you cannot discuss details, facts,
14
circumstances, content of the investigation, but acknowledging
15
an investigation exists is what I did with Chief Sheridan.
16
Q.
And how you feel about it; is that okay also?
17
A.
Feeling that it needs a quick resolution, yes.
18
Q.
So with an IA pending, then it is sufficient to approach
19
the person that makes the final determination and explain how
20
you feel regarding the open IA.
21
A.
TH
E
ND
OF
15:50:33
15:50:53
IE
I didn't really have a heart-to-heart with Chief Sheridan.
Q.
Understood.
A.
I simply expressed that I wanted a quick resolution for the
FR
23
15:50:16
FO
10
22
15:50:04
24
members of my former team who were under investigation.
25
Q.
And you believed that that was appropriate pursuant to
15:51:10
policy?
A.
Yes.
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
8
9
GB
OW
.C
OM
I have nothing further.
Mr. Walker.
No questions at this time, Your Honor.

Mr. Como.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. COMO:
Q.
Good afternoon, Sergeant.
11
A.
Good afternoon, sir.
12
Q.
Could you please describe for us in a little more detail
13
the briefing that you put on for the HSU deputies about the
14
Court's preliminary injunction order.
15
A.
16
in discussions that I would have had with Lieutenant Sousa, the
17
HSU's immediate chain of command, and direction that I was
18
receiving through Lieutenant Sousa from the chain of command
19
that included direction from the Maricopa County Attorney's
20
Office, it was imperative, given the order, that the HSU knew
21
specifically what we were being told the direction was to
TH
E
15:51:52
IE
ND
OF
When the injunction order was received and I reviewed it,
15:52:13
ensure compliance with the order.
FR
23
15:51:40
FO
10
22
15:51:20
So in an informal briefing, which would have been the
24
most expedient means to conduct it, generally, HSU, we would
25
get the two interdiction squads and the employer sanctions
15:52:33
squad run by Cesar Brockman together in one room and
disseminate important matters such as that.
discussion, would have been an explanation of exactly what the
order was, and the instructions we were receiving from the
chain of command on how to do business in the Human Smuggling
Unit respective to the order.
Q.
present for that briefing?
A.
That's my recollection, yes.
10
Q.
You also believe that Sergeant Trowbridge, who was the
11
other leader of the interdiction squad, was present?
12
A.
13
co-supervise and to be together in those type of settings.
14
Q.
15
the employer sanctions unit?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
He was present as well, correct?
18
A.
Again, yes, something like that of that magnitude, it would
19
have been common for us all to be in the same room together.
20
Q.
21
training to the HSU deputies, correct?
GB
OW
.C
OM
And you believe that all of the deputies within HSU were
FO
15:53:08
It was customary for us to
TH
E
It would have -- yes.
And Deputy Brockman, who I think at the time was running
OF
15:53:26
ND
A.
And you're a hundred percent certain that you provided that
15:53:35
I'm a hundred percent certain that the informal briefing
training occurred, yes.
FR
23
15:52:54
IE
22
Would have been a
24
Q.
Now, someone at the level of the chief of enforcement, like
25
Chief Sands at that time, would not be involved in attending an
15:53:49
informal briefing such as that, correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
There are dozens of similar training sessions like that
informal briefing that you've described every year, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Chief Sands, at his level, is not going to go down and
train, or attend those types of training sessions, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
In fact, you don't recall him ever being present for one of
those informal briefings, correct?
11
A.
Correct.
12
Q.
You've talked a lot today about the chain of command.
13
There's a protocol within an organization like the sheriff's
14
office where you report to someone, who then reports to someone
15
above you, and people you -- below you report to you, correct?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
And it sounds like you try to stick pretty strictly to that
18
chain of command, correct?
19
A.
Correct.
20
Q.
21
preliminary injunction order, correct?
TH
E
OF
15:54:29
Chief Sands never told you to violate the Court's
A.
Correct.
Q.
You've never heard Chief Sands say that he was not going to
FR
23
15:54:15
15:54:40
IE
22
15:54:03
FO
10
ND
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
comply with the preliminary injunction order, correct?
25
A.
Correct.
15:54:52
Q.
Most of the information that you received about the
preliminary injunction order and how the office was going to
handle it was from Lieutenant Sousa, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Now, you also did speak with Mr. Casey, the attorney, about
it as well, correct?
A.
through the e-mail chain in one of the exhibits we've already
discussed, yes.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I don't have a recollection of a direct conversation, but
Q.
Okay.
Let me ask you a little bit about these kind of
11
training materials that -- that you were putting together.

This was not the first time you had been asked to put
together training materials, right?
14
A.
15
training materials.
16
number of things over my four years in HSU.
17
Q.
18
together training materials for other topics?
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
21
this one?
TH
E
13
ND
12
I believe it was the first time I was asked to put together

15:55:39
OF
I could be wrong, but I was asked to do a
Have you, during the course of your career, though, put
IE
Okay.
Yes, I did.
You're just not sure whether it was before or after
A.
Correct.
Q.
All right.
FR
23
15:55:24
FO
10
22
15:55:07
15:55:52
Describe just a quick overview of the process,
24
from your perspective, of putting together training materials
25
and then how those materials end up in a finished product.
15:56:04
A.
Well, the training that we would put on in Human Smuggling
Unit was informal briefing training.
I would have conducted, Sergeant Madrid, Sergeant Trowbridge,
Lieutenant Sousa, Cesar Brockman would have conducted.
GB
OW
.C
OM
That's the training that
Over the course of my four years I provided informal
briefing setting training on building clearing tactics, traffic
stop tactics, officer safety issues, other legal concerns in
matters of case law that directly affect how police officers do
their job in the field.

Q.
11
ever put together materials for an E Learning session at any
12
point in your career other than this one?
13
A.
14
may have in reference to the traffic stop scenarios.
15
Q.
16
that, an E Learning program, do you know what the process is?
17
Can you describe it sort of from beginning to end, the typical
18
process for putting that together?
19
A.
20
a rough understanding of it based on my associations with
21
training division personnel.
15:56:47
So what I was getting at is when you've done
15:57:04
OF
All right.
TH
E
Yes, I think -- my recollection as I sit here today is I
ND
I honestly don't know what the typical process is.
I have
15:57:21
But the exact process I -- I
don't know what the exact process is to get a ground level

instruction out through E Learning.
FR
23
Had you
IE
22
Okay, I think I -- we may have miscommunicated.
FO
10
15:56:26
24
Q.
Very well.
Then let's just focus on what you were asked to
25
do and did do in this particular case.
15:57:41
Do you have Exhibit 189 before you?

A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
evidence.
Exhibit 189.
corner the numbers -- the last numbers are 694.
GB
OW
.C
OM
This is an e-mail chain that's been admitted into
I'd like you to turn to the next-to-the-last page on

It's Bates stamped in the bottom right-hand
Are you there?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Let's take a look at the bottom half of that page, because
this is really where your involvement begins.
11
January 11, 2012, you received an e-mail from

Lieutenant Sousa asking you to put together some training
13
scenarios, correct?
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
And the e-mail was copied to several people, including
16
Mr. Casey and Rollie Seebert.
17
A.
18
training division, to my recollection.
19
Q.
20
someone like Mr. Seebert on a correspondence like this putting
21
together training materials?
OF
15:58:21
Who is Rollie Seebert?
Rollie Seebert was at that time the director of the
15:58:41
IE
ND
Do you know whether it would have been typical to include
A.
Not typical, but in this particular sense with regards to
to the court order, I think yes, that would have been
FR
23
TH
E
12
22
15:58:09
FO
10
15:57:56
24
appropriate to copy him on it.
25
Q.
Now, let's take a look at Lieutenant Sousa's e-mail.
He
15:58:59
says that he wants you to put together a couple of scenarios,
right way and wrong way, based on Judge Snow's order and your
conversations with Tim Casey.
Do you see that?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
That suggests that either you had spoken with Tim Casey, or
it was planned that you would speak with Mr. Casey about the
order, correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
10
Q.
Does that refresh your memory about the fact that you did
11
discuss these scenarios with Mr. Casey?
12
A.
13
conversation with Mr. Casey, but I don't doubt that per the
14
e-mail I likely did contact him and have a conversation about
15
it.
16
Q.
17
some scenarios, correct?
18
A.
Yes, sir.
19
Q.
Then the next step is:
20
you write.
22
So that's step 1, and you're supposed to write up
I will have Tim Casey review what
ND
OF
Okay.
15:59:40
15:59:53
Do you see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Step 3 would be to have Chief Sands sign off on it.
24
25
TH
E
Again, sir, I don't have a direct recollection of a
FR
23
15:59:24
IE
21
15:59:14
FO
A.
Do you see that?

Yes, sir.
16:00:00
Q.
And then step 4 is:
Once all of that is done, we'll get
together a training reference -- training reference to put
together something on an E Learning, right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So that's basically going to the training department,
right?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Okay.
here?
GB
OW
.C
OM
So four steps is what Lieutenant Sousa's describing
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
Okay.
12
scenarios in a pretty timely way.
13
first page of Exhibit 189, at the very bottom is your e-mail to
14
Lieutenant Sousa dated January 19th, eight days after you
15
received the assignment, correct?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
And then we can turn to the next page, which begins your
18
training scenarios, and they go on for the next two-and-a-half
19
pages, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
16:00:41
ND
OF
TH
E
If we go to actually the
Yes, sir.
16:00:51
IE
Now, in the second page of Exhibit 189 you state that, I
and I have had --
24
25
And it looks like you turned around your training
constructed this in accordance with the many conversations you
FR
23
16:00:20
FO
10
22
16:00:13
A.
Meaning Lieutenant Sousa and yourself, correct?

Yes, sir.
16:01:08
Q.
-- as well as taking into account the information conveyed
to us both from Tim Casey concerning Judge Snow's order.
GB
OW
.C
OM
You see that?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
All right.
lieutenant, your supervisor, you were being accurate about what
went into your work product?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And obviously, you wouldn't have told him that you'd had
So I assume that when you wrote this to your
many conversations with him about it if it wasn't true,
11
correct?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
All right.
14
confident that Tim Casey worked with you in putting together
15
these scenarios, right?
16
A.
Yes, sir, that's a fair assessment.
17
Q.
I'm not going to ask you a lot of questions about these
18
scenarios, but I do have a couple of questions.
Scenario 1, you have a scenario where someone's
walking through a neighborhood and they get picked up, and
21
essentially all that can be shown is that the person is here
16:01:55
IE
20
illegally, correct, or suspected?

A.
Yes, sir.
24
Q.
And you say do not detain in that scenario, correct?
25
A.
Yes.
FR
23
16:01:40
OF
TH
E
So in looking at this, you feel pretty
ND
19
22
16:01:30
FO
10
16:01:19
16:02:09
Q.
Second scenario is a traffic stop for speeding and the
passengers are suspected of being here illegally, but since
there's no criminal offense, again you say do not detain,
correct?
A.
Yes, sir, correct.
Q.
Scenario 3 is a more complicated scenario where basically
there's a passenger in a traffic stop who has an open
container.
call ICE on the passenger because there's a probable cause for
GB
OW
.C
OM
In that situation the scenario says it's okay to
a criminal violation there.
I sort of short-circuited it, but
11
if that's --
12
A.
If I can be permitted a moment --
13
Q.
Absolutely.
14
A.
-- to read the passage.
TH
E
16
THE WITNESS:
OF
15
16:03:14
I'm sorry, sir, could you repeat the
question?
18
BY MR. COMO:
19
Q.
20
ICE in that situation because there was probable cause to
21
believe the passenger had committed a criminal offense.
17
IE
ND
So under Scenario 3 you suggested that it was okay to call
A.
Yes, sir, that's what's articulated in Scenario 3.
Q.
Okay.
FR
23
16:02:43
FO
10
22
16:02:23
16:04:01
And then Scenario 4 is a load vehicle scenario where
24
looks like there's reasonable suspicion -- I'm summarizing
25
again -- to believe that maybe human smuggling has occurred
16:04:26
here, correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
In the first three scenarios you say detain -- do not
detain or detain, but there's no guidance provided under
Scenario 4 as to whether these people should be detained or not
detained.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Do you recall why that was?
A.
I don't recall, sir.
Q.
Do you believe you were leaving that open for further
review by the attorney?
11
A.
I very likely could have.
12
Q.
Now, I note this e-mail only went to Lieutenant Sousa,
13
according to Exhibit 189.
TH
E
14
I'm sorry.
Let me correct that.
Your e-mail went to
Lieutenant Sousa and then copied on it were Tim Casey and
16
Michael Trowbridge, correct?
17
A.
Yes, sir.
18
Q.
And earlier I think you said that Sergeant Trowbridge may
19
have also helped you review these scenarios or work up these
20
scenarios?
21
A.
16:05:08
ND
OF
15
16:05:23
IE
It would have been customary for me to produce this work
and provide it to him for review and feedback prior to

submitting it to Lieutenant Sousa.
FR
23
16:04:51
FO
10
22
16:04:38
24
Q.
Okay.
And so is that probably why you copied him, you
25
think, on that?
16:05:38
A.
Yes.
Q.
And then you copied the attorney as well?
A.
Yes, I did.
Q.
You did not copy Chief Sands, correct?
A.
No, sir, I did not.
Q.
And is that because the chain of command, you're going to
report to Lieutenant Sousa, you're not going to jump over to
Chief Sands?
A.
That is correct.
10
Q.
Okay.
11
in front of you.
12
A.
Yes, sir.
13
Q.
All right.
14
A.
Yes, sir.
15
Q.
You were questioned about it in your deposition, correct?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
The top here we have an e-mail from Lieutenant Sousa to
18
yourself, and Brian Jakowinicz is cc'd on the e-mail, correct?
19
A.
Yes, sir.
20
Q.
21
Sousa still your supervisor?
16:06:26
OF
TH
E
Do you recall seeing this e-mail recently?
Do you recall at that time March 27, 2012, was Lieutenant
A.
I don't believe he was, no, sir.
Q.
Was Lieutenant Jakowinicz your supervisor at that time?
24
A.
He -- I believe he was.
25
not sure exactly the date, but at some point around that time
FR
23
16:05:53
FO
Can you please take a look at Exhibit 156, if that's
16:05:43
16:06:46
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
ND
That's about the time period, I'm

16:07:04
Lieutenant Sousa transferred out of HSU and Lieutenant
Jakowinicz replaced him.
Q.
listed e-mails.
the scenarios, Brian can make sure Chiefs Sand -- Sands and
Trombi are good with you getting with training and putting out
the training via E Learning, correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Still the same four steps that were anticipated back in
Now, this e-mail states:
GB
OW
.C
OM
We still need to address the
Once Tim -- meaning Tim Casey -- signs off on
January when the project was assigned to you, correct?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q.
And we're still apparently at step 2, which is trying to
13
get Tim Casey to review these and approve these scenarios,
14
correct?
15
A.
Yes, sir, it would appear so.
16
Q.
Did you ever speak with Mr. Casey after receiving this
17
March 27, 2012, e-mail about the status of his review of these
18
scenarios?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
about it?
TH
E
OF
ND
I don't have a recollection of that conversation, no, sir.

Do you know if Lieutenant Jakowinicz ever spoke with him
A.
That I do not know, no, sir.
Q.
Do you know if Lieutenant Sousa ever spoke with him about
FR
23
16:07:53
16:08:09
IE
22
16:07:38
FO
10
16:07:24
24
it?
25
A.
I do not know, sir.
16:08:21
Palmer-Redirect, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 245
Q.
Do you know if Mr. Casey ever reviewed those training
scenarios?
A.
I don't know if he did.
Q.
You never received word back that those training scenarios
had been reviewed by any attorney, correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
So in a progression of the way this training program was to
be rolled out or prepared, to your knowledge, this never got
past step 2, Mr. Casey supposing to review it, correct?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And step 3, then, with it going back to Chief Sands, to
12
your knowledge, we never got to that step, did we?
13
A.
MR. COMO:
you.
THE COURT:
Thank
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. WANG:
19
Q.
20
that you provided for HSU on the judge's preliminary injunction
21
order.
22
18
ND
Sergeant, Ms. Iafrate asked you about an informal training

16:09:40
Do you recall that?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
Is there any written record of the content of that informal
25
training?
FR
23
16:09:09
Ms. Wang.
IE
17
That's all the questions I have.
OF
16
TH
E
That would be a fair statement, sir.
14
15
16:08:56
FO
10
16:08:35
16:09:52
A.
I don't believe there is.
Q.
Is there any video record of that informal training?
A.
No.
Q.
Is there a written record of who attended that informal
training?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, Ms. Iafrate also asked you about circumstances in
which an HSU deputy might have had reasonable suspicion about a
violation of Arizona's human smuggling statute.

Do you recall that?
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
You mentioned that you had gotten information about how to
13
apply the judge's preliminary injunction order in the context
14
of load vehicles, is that right?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And that your understanding was that the Maricopa County
17
Attorney's Office was involved in developing that information,
18
is that correct?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
Attorney's Office involvement in that information based upon?
16:10:22
OF
16:10:39
ND
That is my understanding, yes.

What was that understanding about Maricopa County
16:10:52
IE
A.
My understanding, and what I received from Lieutenant
Sousa, was that the order had been reviewed by the chain of
FR
23
TH
E
11
22
16:10:03
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
command above Lieutenant Sousa, and that Maricopa County
25
Attorney's Office had also been consulted with, was my
16:11:17
understanding -- I didn't consult with them, but that was my
understanding -- and that we were given direction that if HSU
were to in the course of duty come across a suspected human
smuggling load vehicle, conduct a traffic stop and obtain
indicators of it being a human smuggling load vehicle, we'd be
able to detain the occupants in furtherance of a criminal
investigation under state law.
Q.
has different divisions within it, correct?
GB
OW
.C
OM
And you're aware that the Maricopa County Attorney's Office
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
Are you aware that Mr. Liddy, who is counsel for the
12
sheriff in this case, is an employee of the Maricopa County
13
Attorney's Office?
14
A.
Yes.
15
Q.
And you're also aware that there are other divisions of the
16
MCAO that handle criminal prosecutions, is that right?
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
In fact, MCSO works with the MCAO to make criminal cases,
19
is that right?
20
A.
21
Q.
TH
E
ND
OF
16:12:00
Yes.
16:12:12
IE
Did you have an understanding as to which part of MCAO
contributed to the information you received?

A.
No.
24
Q.
It could have been the criminal prosecutors?
25
A.
I assumed at the time it was our criminal prosecutors that
FR
23
16:11:49
FO
10
22
16:11:34
16:12:25
prosecuted our human load vehicles, but I don't know for
certain.
Q.
on the subject, is that right?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And they also would be interested in this topic because
they still had to prosecute those human smuggling cases,
correct?
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
Is that why you made that assumption?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
Now, I want to drill down a little bit on what Ms. Iafrate
13
was asking you about.
14
then I'll ask you some questions about it, if I may.
GB
OW
.C
OM
They were the ones that would have had the legal knowledge
FO
If HSU deputies pulled over a vehicle with four

occupants, okay, one driver and three passengers, and developed
17
probable cause to believe that the driver and the front
18
passenger, the front seat passenger, were violating the Arizona
19
state human smuggling statute, but only had information that
20
the two other passengers were illegally in the United States,
21
first let me set out that hypothetical.
ND
IE
16:13:31
Do you understand that?
A.
Yes, ma'am.
24
Q.
When you gave the informal training to HSU, did your
25
training address that situation?
FR
23
16:13:08
OF
16
22
16:12:47
I'm going to give you a hypothetical and
TH
E
15
16:12:39
16:13:46
A.
Yes, I believe it did.
Q.
And what did you train on for that situation?
A.
Again, with instructions I had received, we were able to
detain all the occupants to conduct more in-depth interviews at
the HSU offices, after Miranda rights, to further try to
determine if a human smuggling crime is being committed under
the state law.
Q.
transported to Enforcement Support, could take a matter of
GB
OW
.C
OM
And those further investigations, once people were
hours?
11
A.
12
it would probably take at least a few hours.
13
Q.
14
Ms. Iafrate, you indicated that you assumed that Lieutenant
15
Sousa would run your draft training scenarios by Chief
16
MacIntyre.
17
A.
Yes.
18
Q.
Why did you assume that?
19
A.
Because my understanding at the time was that he --
20
Director MacIntyre was the person who was running the legal
21
opinions rather through the county attorney or handling matters
Depending on the size of the vehicle; with four occupants
Sir, in response to a question from
TH
E
All right.
16:14:41
IE
ND
OF
Do you recall that testimony?
16:14:57
of that sort at that time.
FR
23
16:14:23
FO
10
22
16:14:06
When I get asked to -- I get an order to look up
24
information, provide information, it's not an unlawful order.
25
It's not an illegal order.
It's not unethical or immoral.
16:15:14
Everybody knows I don't have a law degree, I have a -- I'm a
sworn police officer.
That's it.
GB
OW
.C
OM
So when I provide this information, I'm not providing
a legal opinion; I'm providing information that I would assume
would process up the chain of command and be appropriately
addressed by a legal team.
Q.
Sir, I just have one or two more questions.
8
9
You testified about an argument you had with the
sheriff about a month after the Court's preliminary injunction

order.
Do you recall that?
11
A.
Yes.
12
Q.
And Ms. Iafrate asked you some questions about how it came
13
to be that you called the sheriff on the phone.
TH
E
14
Do you recall that?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
Now, you called the sheriff because Lieutenant Sousa asked
17
you to, is that correct?
18
A.
19
chain of command that was processed to me.
20
Q.
21
the sheriff came at Lieutenant Sousa's behest or at the
OF
16:15:56
It was a direction that he had received through the
ND
Yes.
IE
Was it your understanding that the request that you call
sheriff's behest?
A.
FR
23
16:15:45
FO
10
22
16:15:29
The sheriff's.
24
MS. WANG:
25
THE COURT:
All right.
That's all I have.
Sergeant Palmer, I just wanted to ask a
16:16:09
Palmer, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15
question, and then if you have a follow-up and then we'll go
through the usual lineup, or maybe two questions.
GB
OW
.C
OM
251
EXAMINATION
BY THE COURT:
Q.
I wanted to make sure I understand your testimony.
I think in response to Ms. Wang's redirect you
indicated that based on the instruction you received in your
preliminary training, you taught these informal training
scenarios you did with HSU regarding this Court's preliminary

injunction order.
11
Based on the instruction you received, you told HSU
12
officers that they could detain everyone in a human smuggling
13
load, is that correct?
14
A.
Yes, Your Honor, you did.
15
Q.
I just don't understand, and I guess I'm going to take, to
16
the best of your recollection, where did you -- where did that
17
instruction come from?
18
A.
19
and my co-sergeants from Lieutenant Sousa, and he would have
20
received it through the chain of command above him.
21
Q.
TH
E
OF
16:17:18
ND
The instruction would have been directly received to myself
16:17:36
I believe you indicated early on in your -- in your initial
testimony to Ms. Wang that you never received any training on

how to be a supervisor over deputies, is that correct?
FR
23
Did I understand that correctly?
IE
22
16:17:01
FO
10
16:16:43
24
A.
That's -- I believe I was asked about supervising over HSU
25
squads, that's correct.
But there was a supervisor's academy I
16:17:58
Palmer, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15
attended in 2006.
Q.
And how long did that last?
A.
I believe it was a 40-hour class.
Q.
A 40-hour class?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
So a week?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
Was there any training on how to deal with personnel
problems among deputies that you were supervising?
GB
OW
.C
OM
252
A.
Yes, sir.
11
Q.
Was there any training on when and how to conduct
12
administrative investigations?
13
A.
Yes, sir.
14
Q.
Was there any training on when and how to refer to --
15
someone to what then would have been Internal Affairs?
16
A.
Yes, sir.
17
Q.
And when did you receive this training?
18
A.
When I promoted June-July of 2006.
19
Q.
Did you have any written materials that you received as a
20
result of this training?
21
A.
24
25
TH
E
OF
ND
16:18:45
My recollection is that yes, there were training
materials -Q.
You don't have any of them that remain in your possession?
A.
I don't know if I do or not, Your Honor.
FR
23
16:18:31
IE
22
16:18:18
FO
10
16:18:12
THE COURT:
Thank you.
16:19:00
Palmer-Recross, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 253
Any follow-ups?
MS. WANG:
THE COURT:
MS. IAFRATE:
Ms. Iafrate.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Not from me Your Honor.
Just a few, Your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. IAFRATE:
Q.
cross-examination of you I asked you where you got the
Sergeant Palmer, do you recall that when I started my
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
And you didn't recall, but you do recall you read it,
12
right?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
And I asked you if you understood it, and you said yes.
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
The hypothetical that Ms. Wang gave you where there were
17
two occupants where there was probable cause and two occupants
18
where there -- the only allegation was that they were
19
potentially here illegally in the United States and you said
20
that all of them could be detained, that's in violation of the
21
preliminary injunction, correct?
TH
E
OF
16:19:24
ND
IE
A.
FR
23
16:19:17
FO
10
22
16:19:08
16:19:42
As I sit here today, yes, ma'am.

MS. IAFRATE:
24
THE COURT:
25
Mr. Walker?
Nothing further.
Thank you.
16:19:51
Sands - Direct, CR07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 254
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
MR. COMO:
Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
You may step down.
Next witness.
MR. YOUNG:
executive Chief Brian Sands.
Mr. Como?
GB
OW
.C
OM
No questions, Your Honor.
Thank you, Sergeant.
Your Honor, plaintiffs call former
MR. McDONALD:
Your Honor, I wanted to again mention
that we're still having problems with this computer.

unable to follow the exhibits, the sheriff and I.
11
again.
up here?
14
It went out
All right.
And then, Mr. Walker, would you be willing to share

your screen so that Mr. McDonald and the sheriff can see any of
16
the exhibits, and we'll try and get you back functioning as
17
soon as we can.
22
ND
spell your last name.

THE WITNESS:
16:20:42
BRIAN SANDS,
examined and testified as follows:
24
25
Brian Sands, S-a-n-d-s.
called as a witness herein, having been duly sworn, was
FR
23
State your full name for the record and
IE
21
THE CLERK:
18
20
16:20:23
OF
15
19
16:20:11
Can I have you get Brian back
TH
E
13
THE COURT:
We're
FO
10
12
16:19:59
BY MR. YOUNG:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
16:21:27
Q.
Good afternoon, Chief Sands.
A.
Hello.
Q.
Could you describe since December 2011, briefly, your
history and positions and responsibilities with respect to the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
A.
From 2011?
Q.
Yes.
A.
Yes.
subordinate commanders, one of Dave Trombi, Chief Trombi, Chief
11
Q.
12
some point.
13
A.
14
in July of 2013.
FO
Munnell, and Chief Chagolla.
Can you take us through the present?
15
I'd like to get the whole chronology.
And well, I was over those positions until I retired
MR. YOUNG:
Now, I'd like to have displayed to you
OF
18
THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
THE CLERK:
BY MR. YOUNG:
20
Q.
21
shown, but this is the full unredacted version.
ND
19
IE
I think a redacted version of this e-mail was earlier
16:22:52
If you turn to the page with Bates number 671 at the
bottom, you'll see it's an e-mail from Tim Casey to you and a
FR
23
16:22:17
Exhibit 187, which is an e-mail dated December 23, 2011.
17
22
16:22:00
I know you retired at
TH
E
Yes.
16:21:38
I was over the enforcement command and I had three
10
16
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
number of other people at the MCSO.
25
Do you see that?
16:23:10
A.
Yes.
Q.
And it refers to the Court's order of December 23, 2011?
A.
Correct.
MR. YOUNG:
MR. COMO:
MR. WALKER:
It's on the screen.
MR. YOUNG:
I'm going to move to admit Exhibit 187.

No objection.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I haven't seen the document, Your Honor.
I wonder whether Ms. Romanow could give
Mr. Walker -(Pause in proceedings.)
11
MR. WALKER:
12
MS. IAFRATE:
13
THE COURT:
14

TH
E
All right.
15
BY MR. YOUNG:
16
Q.
17
you had in the period very shortly after the Court's
18
preliminary injunction was issued.
19
Mr. Casey, correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
16:24:14
You had a discussion with
ND
OF
I'm going to ask you, Chief Sands, about some discussions
Correct.
And that discussion was perhaps within hours after
IE
Okay.
16:24:25
the preliminary injunction order was issued?

A.
I believe so.
24
Q.
What did you and Mr. Casey discuss?
25
A.
The -- basically, the court order, briefly.
FR
23
16:23:59
FO
10
22
16:23:28
And I recall
16:24:39
my -- my question to Mr. Casey at the time was:
How does this
affect our -- our Human Smuggling Unit?
that we should curtail the saturation patrols.
Q.
anything else that you and Mr. Casey discussed in that
conversation?
A.
smuggling unit, he made -- he made the statement that he felt
that they could still perform their duties.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And he also mentioned
And did you have an understanding of -- do you recall
No.
When -- when the issue was mentioned about the human
Q.
And that was to investigate the state crime of human
11
smuggling, correct?
12
A.
I believe so, yeah.
13
Q.
Did you understand from Mr. Casey what he was going to do
14
next after talking to you?
15
A.
TH
E
He said he was going to --
OF
17
MS. IAFRATE:
16:25:47
Your Honor, this is attorney-client
privilege, the conversations that are being had.

MR. YOUNG:
Well, Your Honor, this is what Mr. Sands
18
told the monitor, and I don't think there was an objection at
20
that time from Ms. Iafrate's office.
21
already been given.
IE
FR
23
ND
19
22
24
25
16:25:32
FO
10
16
16:25:15
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
And the testimony's
16:26:06
Over objection, Your Honor.
When was the testimony given over
objection, Ms. Iafrate?

MS. IAFRATE:
Would be during his deposition, Your
16:26:25
Honor.
MR. YOUNG:
Actually, Your Honor, I don't think that
GB
OW
.C
OM
he actually testified to that during his deposition.
say it to the monitor, and I think that he should be able to
say it here since the privilege to that conversation has been
waived.
He did
There is a broader waiver question which we'll
probably bring up to you at some later point after today, but
for this particular question I think there is no privilege at

this time that remains.
11
THE COURT:
Was -- and I believe that I did provide
12
that you can have lawyers present during Mr. Sands' interview
13
by the monitor.
TH
E
Was there any objection made at that time?
14
MS. IAFRATE:
15
THE COURT:
No, Your Honor.
All right.
Then you may answer the
question.
17
BY MR. YOUNG:
18
Q.
19
understanding from Mr. Casey as to what he was going to do
20
after talking to you?
21
A.
16:27:10
Did you have an
ND
So my question, Chief Sands, was:
He was going to speak with the chief deputy and the
IE
Yes.
16:27:20
sheriff.
Q.
FR
23
OF
16
22
16:26:57
FO
10
16:26:42
Now, moving on to another conversation, did you discuss the
24
injunction with Deputy Chief MacIntyre in the period after it
25
was issued?
16:27:35
A.
Yes, I -- I remember I was copying something on the copy
machine and he approach -- Chief MacIntyre approached me and
asked me if I had received the injunction.
he further asked me, well, have you -- have you briefed the
deputies?
with Tim Casey on that.
Q.
working with the deputies?
Chief MacIntyre, did you know why it was or who had -- who had
GB
OW
.C
OM
And I said yes, and
And I told him that we were going to have -- work
And did you know what it was that caused Mr. Casey to be
When you had this conversation with
caused Mr. Casey to be planning to work with the deputies?
11
A.
12
MacIntyre, I had conversation with Sheriff Arpaio, and present
13
was -- was Chief Deputy Sheridan.
14
discussion about this injunction had came up.
15
that we were going to curtail the saturation patrols, and Chief
16
Deputy Sheridan mentioned that Casey was going to work with the
17
deputies on -- on disseminating the information.
18
Q.
19
that discussion.
20
talking about the injunction.
21
shown Exhibit 67.
24
25
And at that time the

The sheriff said
16:28:57
OF
TH
E
Well, sometime before the conversation with Chief
I'm going to ask you a few more questions about

But first thing is I want to make sure we're
IE
ND
All right.
I'm going to ask that you be
16:29:21
We've had some preliminary discussions, and I think at
least Ms. Iafrate has stated there's no objection to the
FR
23
16:28:27
FO
10
22
16:27:58
introduction of Exhibit 67, and I would move its admission.

MR. COMO:
16:29:51
MR. WALKER:
Is Exhibit 67 the injunction, preliminary
injunction?
GB
OW
.C
OM
MR. YOUNG:
that contains the injunction.
MR. WALKER:
THE COURT:
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
It is the Court's December 23, 2011 order
No objection.
Chief Sands, you mentioned a discussion among you, Sheriff
Arpaio, and Chief Deputy Sheridan.
11
conversation took place?
12
A.
In the sheriff's office.
13
Q.
And as precisely as you can, please tell us when the
14
conversation took place.
15
A.
16
was issued; relatively soon, as I remember.
17
Q.
18
discussions that he had had with Mr. Casey?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
you did have, about whether Chief Sheridan had had a discussion
TH
E
Did Chief Sheridan say anything about any
ND
No.
16:30:27
Okay.
16:30:13
OF
I can't recall exactly, but it was sometime after the order
16:30:43
IE
Did you have an understanding, based on the discussion that
with Mr. Casey?

A.
FR
23
Can you tell us where that
FO
10
22
16:30:05
I felt from the course of conversation that he had, or
24
possibly the sheriff had discussed it with him.
25
I wasn't present.
I don't know,
16:31:01
Q.
What was it that gave you that impression?
A.
Well, his comment about having Casey, Tim Casey, give
instruction to the deputies.
Q.
should do in terms of informing people about the injunction?
A.
the -- to the order, and at the time he said that we're going
to do what our attorneys say.
Q.
GB
OW
.C
OM
Did you say anything to the sheriff about what the MCSO
I told him we should tell all the deputies relative to
Just brief the HSU deputies.
Now, when you said that it should go out to all the
deputies, what did you mean by that?
11
talking about?
12
A.
All the deputies in the office.
13
Q.
Okay.
14
the whole department should not receive the injunction, isn't
15
that right?
16
A.
17
to do.
18
Q.
19
that correct?
20
A.
21
Q.
16:31:45
TH
E
And Sheriff Arpaio told you that his view was that
16:32:02
OF
Yes, based on what he said was doing what the attorney said
ND
And that was simply to put it out to the HSU deputies, is
That's the way I understood it.
16:32:16
IE
Did the sheriff discuss with you, other than what you've
already said, his reasons for not wanting to send it to

deputies in others parts of the office?
FR
23
Which deputies are you
FO
10
22
16:31:22
24
A.
No, I don't believe so.
25
Q.
What is your view of what the sheriff told you about who
16:32:32
should get notification of the preliminary injunction?
A.
the training into play, along with Tim Casey, regardless of
what the comment was by the sheriff.
Q.
you question that decision, is that right?
Okay.
When I walked away I felt that we put
GB
OW
.C
OM
I'm not really sure.
Well, you told the monitor staff that to this day
MS. IAFRATE:
Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
THE WITNESS:
Per -- oh, sorry.
THE COURT:
THE WITNESS:
What I told the monitor was my personal
11
opinion.
12
BY MR. YOUNG:
13
Q.
14
have gone out to the entirety of the MCSO.
15
thing you told the sheriff, right?
16
A.
Correct.
17
Q.
And you thought that deputies throughout the MCSO should
18
have seen the order and should have been given an explanation
19
of the meaning of that order, is that right?
20
A.
21
Q.
16:33:34
ND
OF
TH
E
That's the same
Correct.
16:33:49
But that did not happen, correct?
A.
I believe it did not happen.
Q.
You also discussed the preliminary injunction with
FR
23
Well, your personal opinion was that the message should
IE
22
16:33:21
FO
10
Overruled.
16:33:01
24
Lieutenant Sousa, is that right?
25
A.
Correct.
16:34:04
Q.
Please tell us where and when that conversation took place.
A.
It was sometime after that conversation I had with the
sheriff with Chief Sheridan present.
telephone conversation.
deputies in HSU had been briefed, and his comment to me was he
had talked to them, but they hadn't talked to the -- to the
deputies.
was the chief deputy's direction that Casey would formulate
some training for the HSU deputies and asked him if --
GB
OW
.C
OM
As I remember it was a
I was following up to see if the
And I remembered telling Lieutenant Sousa that it
Q.
Let me ask you a clarifying question.
I think -- is it
11
correct that you asked Lieutenant Sousa whether Mr. Casey had
12
talked to the deputies, and Lieutenant Sousa told you that
13
Mr. Casey had talked to Lieutenant Sousa, but had not talked to
14
the deputies, is that correct?
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
And what was your response to that?
17
A.
I told Sousa that that was direction from the chief deputy,
18
and that if -- if he needed me to call Mr. Casey, I would do
19
it.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
16:35:16
ND
And why did you offer to call Mr. Casey?
16:35:31
IE
Because I wanted to make sure it was done.
Q.
What was Lieutenant Sousa's response?
A.
He told me no, I will -- I will take care of it.
24
Q.
And then, to your knowledge, what happened after that in
25
that regard?
FR
23
16:34:56
FO
10
22
16:34:26
16:35:49
A.
I can't remember, really.
Q.
Okay.
going to take care of it, as he told you he would do?
A.
I would hope so, yes.
Q.
Now, at some point Lieutenant Sousa was replaced as head of
the HSU by Lieutenant Jakowinicz, is that correct?
A.
Correct.
Q.
Did you ever discuss the preliminary injunction with
Lieutenant Jakowinicz?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Well, did you believe that Lieutenant Sousa was
A.
11
should read it and study it.
12
Q.
13
the preliminary injunction with Mr. Casey?
14
A.
I don't -- I don't remember that, no.
15
Q.
How long did your discussion with Lieutenant Jakowinicz
16
about the injunction last?
17
A.
Just a few minutes.
18
Q.
Was it in person or by phone?
19
A.
It was in person.
20
Q.
21
A.
TH
E
OF
16:36:40
ND
Q.
Was that after he became the supervisor over the HSU?
16:36:50
Yeah, or it was sometime during the transition.

Okay.
Now, I want to ask you a little bit about the
appellate process with respect to the injunction and how
FR
23
16:36:17
Did you tell Lieutenant Jakowinicz that he should review
IE
22
I did tell him about the preliminary injunction and that he
FO
10
16:36:03
24
decisions about appealing things like that were made within the
25
MCSO.
16:37:13
Were you involved in any discussions about appealing

the injunction?
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
Who made the decisions for the MCSO about appeals in cases
like that?
A.
that decision.
Q.
sheriff's decisions to make, correct?
GB
OW
.C
OM
Usually, counsel, and it's usually the sheriff that makes
Decisions about appeals of judgments and orders are the
A.
Normally, yes.
11
Q.
Did you ever hear during staff meetings the sheriff discuss
12
what the MCSO would do in terms of appealing a judgment?
13
A.
No, I really can't recall.
14
Q.
Do you recall answering the following question during your
15
deposition, which was on April 1?
16
your deposition be given to you if you don't have it.
17
the April 1 deposition, and counsel, it's page 36, line 16.
18
Your Honor, may I hand the witness the deposition?
24
25
TH
E
This is
You may.
(Handing the witness deposition).
16:38:51
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
Now, if you go to paragraph -- no, page 36, line 16, you're
asked this question:
FR
23
MR. YOUNG:
16:38:19
IE
22
And I'm going to ask that
OF
THE COURT:
ND
19
21
16:37:51
FO
10
20
16:37:30
"Did those issues ever come up in any staff meetings
that -- that you participated in?
16:39:23
"Answer:
That -- it might have come up.
I just don't
remember.
continually, and -- and it was typical to hear the sheriff say,
we're going to appeal that, we're going to appeal that.
can't say with any certainty or recollection him saying that
directly about this order or this lawsuit.
It was -- there was a lot of legal issues going on
"Question:
GB
OW
.C
OM
But I
When the sheriff would say in -- in your
presence, we're going to appeal this or that, would that be the
subject of discussion among the senior staff about whether that

was that good idea or -- a good thing or a bad thing to do, or
11
would he just announce his decisions?

"Answer:
In staff, he would announce -- he would --
he would -- no, there was -- I don't remember any collective
14
type of discussion that I was privy to on any legal matter
15
about an appeal.
16
conversation with counsel with."
TH
E
13
And it was typically something that he had
You see those answers?

A.
Yes.
19
Q.
Were those -- are those answers accurate?
20
A.
21
Q.
24
25
ND
Yes.
16:40:32
IE
I want to ask you now about a situation where an MCSO
officer encounters someone whom the officer believes to be an

illegal immigrant, but where it's determined that there is no
FR
23
18
22
16:40:18
OF
17
16:39:58
FO
10
12
16:39:42
crime, no state crime to be pursued.

Before the preliminary injunction was issued, that is,
16:41:04
before December 23, 2011, did you have a belief about whether
the MCSO had the authority to detain people who were not going
to be charged criminally so that they could be transported to
ICE or the Border Patrol?
A.
I'm sorry, are you stating prior to the injunction?
Q.
Yes.
that regard?
A.
Yes.
Q.
What was your view?
10
A.
Well, the view was, is that we could turn them over to
11
Border Patrol or ICE.
12
Q.
13
authority?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Okay.
16
deposition, the same deposition, actually be played on video.
17
This is your December -- your April 1, 2015, video, page 76,
18
line 4, through page 77, line 8, and this is Sands video
19
number 2:
22
FO
16:41:40
TH
E
16:41:59
OF
Well, I'm going to ask that a portion of your
(Deposition testimony played as follows:)

"Question:
16:42:22
"Answer:
Backup plan with the sheriff?

No.
I had discussed that with him prior to
the injunction --
FR
23
Did you have a view on what authority the MCSO had in
ND
21
16:41:27
Did you have the view that the MCSO did not have that
IE
20
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
"Question:
25
"Answer:
Okay.
-- that I had a problem with the -- with the
16:42:41
premise of detaining somebody that long to turn them over to
the Border Patrol, unless we were in close proximity of the
Border Patrol.
I had a problem with the detention part.
But to drive somebody halfway across the state,
"Question:
"Answer:
GB
OW
.C
OM
And what was your problem with that?
My -- and this is when we didn't have the
287(g) either before or after.
"Question:
"Answer:
Yes.
And my problem with that is detaining
somebody for that length of time without a response from the
11
agency that's going to take jurisdiction.
12
Patrol not being close by, and driving them to Nogales or
13
driving them to Casa Grande, I just -- I didn't like the idea.

"Question:
Okay.
Was it your belief that once the
287(g) authority was taken away in 2009, that your office no
16
longer had the authority to enforce the federal civil
17
immigration law by keeping those people for that length of
18
time?
19
20
shouldn't be conducted."
21
BY MR. YOUNG:
Yeah, I -- I personally believed that that
ND
"Answer:
IE
16:44:08
Q.
Chief Sands, is that testimony correct?
A.
Yes, I was confused, I believe, was your first questions
FR
23
16:43:46
OF
15
22
16:43:24
And with the Border
TH
E
FO
10
14
16:43:06
24
that led up to doing that.
25
Q.
Okay.
Well, I apologize for that.
I'll try to be clearer
16:44:17
from now on.
The belief that you just described, or that was
GB
OW
.C
OM
described in the video that was just played from your
deposition, did you discuss that belief with Sheriff Arpaio
prior to the preliminary injunction being issued?
A.
Yes.
Q.
Okay.
discussion of your view on that issue?
A.
I think he disagreed with me.
10
Q.
Now, the December 23, 2011, injunction issued by this Court
11
confirmed that earlier view that you had, correct?
12
A.
Correct.
13
Q.
Now I want to shift to the time period after the
14
preliminary injunction was issued.
15
on this topic with Sheriff Arpaio?
16
A.
On the topic of detaining people?
17
Q.
Yes, the topic that was just the subject of the video from
18
your deposition that we watched.
19
A.
20
the injunction meant that if we detain somebody as suspects in
21
a certain state crime, that if they weren't arrested they were
16:45:18
OF
TH
E
FO
16:44:56
Did you have a discussion
I had a discussion with him early on that I believe
ND
I did.
16:45:38
going to have to be released.

Q.
FR
23
And what did Sheriff Arpaio say in response to your
IE
22
16:44:33
And this discussion, just to be clear, was after the
24
injunction, correct?
25
A.
Correct.
16:45:59
Q.
Do you recall approximately how long after the injunction?
A.
No.
exactly.
Q.
place?
A.
In his office.
Q.
This -- you earlier described a three-way conversation
among yourself, Chief Sheridan, and Sheriff Arpaio.
discussion with Sheriff Arpaio that we're discussing now
Okay.
GB
OW
.C
OM
I want to say it was very soon, but I can't remember
And where did this discussion with the sheriff take
This other
probably happened a few days after that earlier three-way
11
discussion, is that right?
12
A.
I believe so, yes.
13
Q.
How long did that discussion just with Sheriff Arpaio last?
14
A.
It was just a few minutes.
15
Q.
Now, I think you referred to this as a drop-house scenario,
16
is that correct, that you discussed with Sheriff Arpaio?
17
A.
I did.
18
Q.
Could you describe that scenario in more detail?
19
A.
I believe what I said was that --
22
24
25
TH
E
ND
OF
16:46:45
Objection, Your Honor, relevance.
This
16:47:02
goes to not the members of the defined class.
FR
23
MS. IAFRATE:
IE
21
16:46:30
FO
10
20
16:46:12
THE COURT:
Overruled.
THE WITNESS:
The scenario that I described was of
deputies at a drop house -I'm sorry, can you ask that question again?
16:47:21
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
discussion with the sheriff.
was that you described to the sheriff.
A.
cause to arrest somebody under state charges, anyone else that
was there was going to have to be released.
Q.
to the ICE or to the Border Patrol?
You described a drop-house scenario in your
GB
OW
.C
OM
Yes.
Please tell us what that scenario
The scenario was is that once we developed enough probable
And when you say "release," would that include taking them
A.
No, I re -- I remember my discussion was "released."
11
Q.
So you told the sheriff that under your view in that
12
scenario, the MCSO must let the person go and not take them to
13
either ICE or the Border Patrol, is that right?
14
A.
Correct.
15
Q.
It was your belief at that time that this Court's December
16
23, 2011, preliminary injunction required such release, is that
17
right?
18
A.
I believe so, yes.
19
Q.
Okay.
20
him this view that you just described, you specifically
21
mentioned the preliminary injunction to the sheriff, correct?
TH
E
OF
16:48:16
16:48:32
IE
ND
In your discussion with the sheriff where you gave
A.
Correct.
Q.
What was the sheriff's reaction to the statement that you
FR
23
16:47:55
FO
10
22
16:47:31
24
made to him?
25
A.
He disagreed with me.
16:48:50
Q.
Did your mentioning of the preliminary injunction to the
sheriff have any effect at all on the sheriff's view, as he
expressed it to you?
A.
I don't believe so.
Q.
When you say the sheriff disagreed with you, did you mean
to say that the sheriff indicated that he thought that the MCSO
should continue to detain people who are not going to be
criminally charged who are believed to be illegal immigrants
and/or take them to ICE or the Border Patrol?
GB
OW
.C
OM
A.
No, I don't think it was that in-depth a conversation.
11
Q.
When you mentioned the injunction to the sheriff, did he
12
indicate any concern that you can recall about whether he
13
should be doing anything to make sure he complied with the
14
injunction?
15
A.
No, I don't believe so, no.
16
Q.
In your discussion with the sheriff, did he say anything
17
about how he would make sure he complied with the injunction?
18
A.
No, I don't believe so.
19
Q.
Did the sheriff tell you that he wanted to make sure he
20
complied with the injunction?
21
A.
TH
E
OF
ND
Q.
16:50:10
I don't believe that was in that conversation, no.

When you gave the sheriff your view of what was required
under the injunction and said the people in that drop-house
FR
23
16:49:50
IE
22
16:49:30
FO
10
16:49:05
24
scenario with no state charges should be released, did the
25
sheriff say, we'd better go talk to a lawyer about that?
16:50:29
A.
I don't think so, no.
Q.
Did the sheriff, in your recollection, mention any opinion
or advice from an attorney as support for his view?
A.
I don't remember anything like that.
Q.
Did the sheriff ever tell you, that you can recall, that he
was going to get legal advice on the issue of what to do with
people believed to be illegal immigrants, but for whom no state
charges were going to be brought?
A.
I don't believe so, no.
10
Q.
Did the sheriff indicate to you that he would want to
11
consult with anyone else on that issue?
12
A.
I don't think it came up, no; I don't recall it coming up.
13
Q.
What was your response after the sheriff disagreed with
14
you?
15
A.
I --
16
Q.
What did you say, if anything, to the sheriff?
17
A.
I don't think I said anything more.
18
Q.
Can you remember any time at all at any time when the
19
sheriff ever told you directly that he wanted to comply with
20
the injunction?
21
A.
16:51:18
OF
TH
E
FO
16:51:03
ND
Q.
16:51:36
No, I don't recall anything like that.

Can you recall any steps that the sheriff himself took to
make sure that the MCSO complied with the injunction?
FR
23
16:50:49
IE
22
GB
OW
.C
OM
24
A.
No.
25
Q.
Do you recall any meeting or discussion where the sheriff
16:51:52
told anyone else in the MCSO that the MCSO should make sure to
follow the injunction?
A.
No.
Q.
Now, it appears, would you agree with me, that the MCSO
acted in a way the sheriff wanted in that drop-house scenario,
and not the way that you wanted, is that correct?
A.
I -- I would say that's -- that is correct, yes.
Q.
I'm going to ask that you be shown Exhibit 189, which is a
series of training scenarios that Sergeant Palmer has just
GB
OW
.C
OM
testified about.
11
the training scenarios that he drafted, correct?
12
A.
I did, yes.
13
Q.
Do you ever recall seeing these training scenarios that --
14
A.
I don't recall seeing them, no.
15
Q.
Do you recall ever talking to anyone about the training
16
scenarios?
17
A.
No, I don't recall that.
18
Q.
Do you know why they were never used?
19
A.
No.
20
Q.
21
training scenarios should not be used and you were not aware of
TH
E
ND
OF
16:53:07
Is it possible that someone other than you said that the
16:53:17
that?
A.
No, I don't know of anything like that.
24
Q.
Okay.
25
the MCSO could have said, or someone, could have said or
FR
23
16:52:48
IE
22
You heard Sergeant Palmer's testimony about
FO
10
16:52:14
Well, is it possible that someone else somewhere in

16:53:36
decided not to use the training scenarios, and you just were
not in on that decision?

MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
Is that possible?
Sustained.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
I am just referring to Scenarios 1 and 2 as examples -- that
where the MCSO encountered someone who was believed to be an
illegal immigrant, but for whom no state charges could be
Now, you understand from the training scenarios that -- and
brought, that those people should be released.
11
Is that your understanding of the scenarios that were

drafted by Sergeant Palmer?
13
A.
As I read them before, I believe you're correct, yes.
14
Q.
All right.
15
would like to, in order to answer my next question.
Well, feel free to read them again now, if you
Did your discussion with Sheriff Arpaio indicate to

you that the sheriff would not have agreed with
18
Sergeant Palmer's training scenarios?
17
MS. IAFRATE:
ND
19
20
24
25
I think as worded I am going to sustain
16:55:01
that objection.
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
22
16:54:38
OF
16
TH
E
12
21
16:54:23
FO
10
16:53:52
Based on your discussions with Sheriff Arpaio, do you have
a -- well, let me withdraw that and ask another question.

Did you discuss with Sheriff Arpaio the basic idea
16:55:22
that is behind Sergeant Palmer's training scenario, that is,
where you have someone who's believed to be an illegal
immigrant, and you have no basis for state charges, you should
let them go?
GB
OW
.C
OM
You discussed that with Sheriff Arpaio, that basic
fact pattern, correct?
A.
Right.
Q.
And your position in your discussion with the sheriff is
the same as what Sergeant Palmer set forth in his training
Early on I did, yes.
scenarios, correct?
11
A.
Similar, yes.
12
Q.
And Sheriff Arpaio disagreed with your position, is that
13
right?
14
A.
15
recall.
16
Q.
17
think that the sheriff might have had a problem with those
18
training scenarios based on political considerations, correct?
19
A.
20
Q.
21
to Sergeant Palmer's training scenarios, correct?
24
25
TH
E
16:56:13
OF
ND
I believe he had political considerations as a sheriff.
FR
23
I don't know how he felt about it later, I can't
Now, based on your discussions with Sheriff Arpaio, you
And those might have caused a problem for him with respect
IE
22
Early on.
16:56:00
FO
10
16:55:43
MS. IAFRATE:
MR. YOUNG:
16:56:34
This is based on his discussions with the
sheriff, Your Honor.

THE COURT:
Are you asking him what the sheriff said?
16:56:54
I'm asking him a question that is his
conclusion based on what the sheriff did say.
THE COURT:
Sustained.
GB
OW
.C
OM
MR. YOUNG:
BY MR. YOUNG:
Q.
was and is a political person who has to be responsive to his
constituents, correct?
A.
I believe that, yes, sir.
Q.
And the sheriff did have, to your knowledge, based on your
In your experience at the MCSO, Chief Sands, the sheriff
time at the agency, political beliefs on immigration issues,
11
and did respond to that base and the political power structure
12
regarding those issues, is that correct?
13
A.
TH
E
I believe so, yes.
14
THE COURT:
Mr. Young, again, I don't want to
interrupt you, but I am looking for a place to end for the day,
16
so --
17
MR. YOUNG:
Actually, Your Honor, subject to follow-up
based on others' questions, I have come to the end of my direct
19
examination.
ND
All right.
That sounds like a good place
16:57:57
to end for the day.

Here's what I would like to do.
I would like, A, for
the parties to exchange exhibits tonight so that we can
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
22
18
21
16:57:46
OF
15
20
16:57:27
FO
10
16:57:09
24
stipulate to exhibits in the morning.
I would like the parties
25
to exchange who they're actually wanting to call as witnesses
16:58:15
CV07-2513, Melendres v. Arpaio, 4/21/15 Evidentiary Hrg 278
and to e-mail me that list tonight.
I'm going to then talk with the parties beginning at
GB
OW
.C
OM
8:30 tomorrow morning about setting time limits for the
testimony for this week's testimony, keeping in mind that we
have a continuation date and we may explore other dates when
the parties may be available, if it's necessary, but I'm going
to set time limits.
8
9
And so I would ask you to tell me, after your
consultation, which witnesses you're actually going to call
this week and who intends to call them, and if in fact we can
11
work out so that we only call them once.
12
will then take a look at the remaining time and I'll give you
13
limits.
14
morning.
FO
10
And then I will -- I
TH
E
16
MS. IAFRATE:
OF
Ms. Iafrate.
18
call them based on the testimony, so do I err on the side of
19
caution?
ND
THE COURT:
Yes, please do.
IE
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
16:59:21
Okay.
And I'll keep in mind and please keep in
mind that it would appear that we are going to have a
FR
23
that go at the end, I may want to call them or may not want to
22
16:59:08
Your Honor, my concern is our witnesses
17
21
16:58:49
And I want to meet with the parties at 8:30 in the
15
20
16:58:34
24
continuation hearing, so just because we may not be able to fit
25
them all in this week I don't think is going to result in
16:59:29
unfairness to you.
the two parts of the hearing, I want to accomplish as much as
we can this week and as much as we can in any subsequent
hearings that may be necessary.
But in light of the length of time between
GB
OW
.C
OM
Mr. Liddy, I notice you're back in the -- in the
audience.
be able to conclude whether or not you're going to reenter any
representation in this case?
MR. LIDDY:
Do you have -- do you have any idea when you might
Yes, Your Honor, I am prepared to do that
now.
THE COURT:
You're prepared to do what?
12
MR. LIDDY:
To give you my answer.
13
THE COURT:
Oh, okay.
MR. LIDDY:
I'll be filing an application to withdraw
ahead.
15
tonight.
OF
16
TH
E
11
14
Okay, thanks.
18
Then if -- if any party's going -- has any party
19
thought about whether they're going to oppose Mr. Liddy's
20
application?
ND
IE
FR
23
24
25
Go
17:00:10
Thank you.
THE COURT:
22
All right.
Thank you.
17
21
17:00:02
FO
10
16:59:46
17:00:24
MR. YOUNG:
None from the plaintiffs, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Ms. Iafrate?
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
that's unique.
That would be awkward, Your Honor.
It would be, but there's a lot about this

17:00:37
I would not be opposing it, Your Honor.
I just re-urge my concerns that I have as they reflect on me.
THE COURT:
GB
OW
.C
OM
MS. IAFRATE:
Well, let me just tell you that Mr. Liddy
set forth, I think, reasons that were unique to Mr. Liddy, and
I -- when I asked you, I think you referred to Mr. Liddy, but
Mr. Liddy's reasons are unique to Mr. Liddy, and I don't think
you share them.
10
No.
However, I also don't think that
Mr. Schwab shares them, and he's no longer sitting at my table,

either.
11
THE COURT:
Well, I didn't grant Mr. Schwab any right
to withdraw, nor is he requesting it, so you can resolve that
13
over the evening.
TH
E
12
14
MR. COMO:
15
MR. WALKER:
16
THE COURT:
I have no objection, Your Honor.

The county has no objection, Your Honor.
All right.
OF
17
Then is there anything else we
Your Honor, let me just add that we don't
MS. WANG:
object to Mr. Liddy's application to withdraw as counsel, to
20
the extent that it doesn't cause any delays, further delays or
21
change in order of witness examinations this week.
IE
ND
19
THE COURT:
17:01:37
Well, I guess one of the things -- and
Ms. Iafrate may have a busy evening.
FR
23
17:01:20
need to take up at this point?
18
22
17:01:07
FO
MS. IAFRATE:
17:00:53
I am going to ask her or
24
somebody to consult with you on the exhibits and on the
25
witnesses and make those kinds of declarations to me so that I
17:01:51
can be prepared to meet with you at 8:30, but I also think that
maybe we need to know, among those witnesses that people are
actually going to call, we need to figure out which depositions
Ms. Iafrate was actually at, and which ones were covered by
Mr. Liddy and Ms. Iafrate was not at them, so that she can have
time, reasonable time, and not too much time, Ms. Lid --
Ms. Iafrate, but a reasonable time, to review those depositions
and make sure that she's ready to provide representation,
adequate representation here.
Among the witnesses that you intend to call,
11
Ms. Iafrate, are there any whose depositions were taken that
12
you did not cover?

MS. IAFRATE:
14
THE COURT:
Among the witnesses other than Lieutenant
Sousa that you expect the plaintiffs to call, were you not
16
present at any of those depositions.
OF
15
MS. IAFRATE:
THE COURT:
Yes, Your Honor, and I actually made a
I'm -- I'm in no rush, and I'm not going
ND
19
to make anybody in the gallery stay, you can all go, but of
21
course, you're welcome to stay.
17:02:59
There's not going to be any
more testimony today.
FR
23
IE
20
22
17:02:42
list over lunch and now I'm not finding it, so --
18
17:02:28
No, Your Honor.
TH
E
13
17
17:02:09
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
MS. WANG:
Your Honor, while Ms. Iafrate's searching,
24
I would note that when Mr. Casey made his application to
25
withdraw as counsel, we actually did object on the grounds that
17:03:19
there were several ongoing efforts in the litigation, primarily
relating to document production, and it -- I think it's fair to
say, and I think Ms. Iafrate would agree with me, that in fact
there were difficulties as a result of his withdrawal, and I
would hope that Mr. Liddy's withdrawal doesn't have
repercussions beyond the logistics for this week's hearing, and
to the extent that it would cause those problems, I do think
that plaintiffs would want to be heard on that.
thought it through, frankly.

THE COURT:
I haven't
Well, let me just -- I appreciate that.
Let me make two observations that are sort of general
12
observations about how I intend to approach it, and not
13
specific observations, because you might be able to change my
14
mind in any given fact scenario.
TH
E
11
15
Mr. Liddy, at least in a few sentences, set forth

reasons why he may be in a unique situation that may require
17
his withdrawal.
18
withdrawal is required, and I assume, Mr. Liddy, you're going
19
to put forth the reasons to the extent that you can disclose
20
them in your motion.
ND
He now apparently has concluded that his
17:04:31
If in fact they pertain to his ethical
responsibilities, I'm not going to make him remain in this

case.
FR
23
17:04:14
IE
22
17:03:56
OF
16
21
17:03:39
FO
10
GB
OW
.C
OM
But that having -- and I also do recognize that the
24
county, to the extent they want to assert that the court of
25
appeals' opinion involves something more than merely naming the
17:04:49
right party, I'm going to let them do whatever they want to do,
even though I have my doubts about that that I've already
expressed.
relate to their fisc and not so much their legal
responsibilities, they can make those arguments, too.
GB
OW
.C
OM
And to the extent they want to assert things that
But I have given the -- I have given MCSO, the county,
the individual contemnors here, adequate and great amount of
time to comply with my rulings, and whether or not -- and I
assume Mr. Liddy has other people in his office that may not
share in his own debility, based on what he said today.
11
I'm assuming that the county, that part of the county

that provides services to the MCSO, and that part of the county
13
that is individually represented is going to put forth major
14
resources to make sure that the remainder of this matter can be
15
expeditiously resolved, and I will expect them to do so and
16
require them to do so, even if Mr. Liddy is allowed to
17
withdraw.
22
MS. IAFRATE:
on, Your Honor.
I don't know what part I'm to comment
17:06:00
The fact that Maricopa County will put forth
money in order to make certain that we get this accomplished?
FR
23
ND
21
hear you, Ms. Iafrate, if you think it is.
IE
20
And I don't think that's unfair, but I'm willing to
18
17:05:44
OF
TH
E
12
19
17:05:26
FO
10
17:05:06
THE COURT:
Well, I'm just going to make it clear that
24
I have made it clear for months what the obligations are in
25
this case.
I was just looking at the various timelines that I
17:06:18
received that got extended for the completion of the
investigations that are not yet done, and for the discovery
that's not yet happened, and now the withdrawal of Mr. Liddy, I
guess I'm just saying that I'm not going to view that as a
basis or an excuse to further extend that production of those
deadlines.
MS. IAFRATE:
GB
OW
.C
OM
I understand what you're saying, Your
Honor, but I would like to suggest that none of those were my
responsibility --
11
THE COURT:
you in any way.
Oh, no.
Again, I'm not trying to impugn
I'm just stating my position.
12
Anything else?
13
MS. WANG:
14
THE COURT:
15
MS. IAFRATE:
16
THE COURT:
17
MR. WALKER:
18
the county today, Your Honor.
22
24
25
TH
E
Not from plaintiffs, Your Honor.

Ms. Iafrate?
No, Your Honor.
Thank you.
17:07:06
OF
Mr. Walker?
Nothing further -- nothing further for
Nothing further, Your Honor.

All right.
Then I'll see the parties at
8:30, and please e-mail my chambers those lists tonight.

you.
FR
23
THE COURT:
IE
21
MR. COMO:
ND
19
20
17:06:53
FO
10
17:06:37
(Proceedings recessed at 5:07 p.m.)
Thank
17:07:15
1
C E R T I F I C A T E
GB
OW
.C
OM
2
3
4
5
6
7
I, GARY MOLL, do hereby certify that I am duly
appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute
FO
10
a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of
12
the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled
13
cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript
14
was prepared under my direction and control.
TH
E
11
16
17
DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 22nd day of April,

2015.
18
22
FR
23
IE
21
ND
19
20
24
25
OF
15
s/Gary Moll

Melendres # 1017 - 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Melendres # 1017 - 2015-04-21 Transcript Melendres, Et Al., V. Arpaio, Et Al., Evidentiary Hearing Day 1 - 01

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporter

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

Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.

Stanley Young, Esq.

Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.

For the Defendant Arpaio:

Andre I. Segura, Esq.

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

For the Defendants:

Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Richard K. Walker, Esq.

For Chief Deputy Sheridan: Lee D. Stein, Esq.

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:

Greg S. Como, Esq.

For Deputy Chief MacIntyre: Gary L. Birnbaum, Esq.

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

For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

For Sergeant Brett Palmer:

Christopher T. Rapp, Esq.

Chief Robert Warshaw

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

Direct Examination by Mr. Pochoda

Direct Examination by Ms. Wang

Direct Examination by Mr. Young

E-mail to 27 recipients from Chief Trombi re

Dkt 494 Preliminary Injunction Order dated

Dkt 881, Order dated 2/12/2015

The Briefing Board, Number 13-40 dated

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

MCSO Memorandum to Trombi from Jakowinicz re

MCSO Memorandum to Jakowinicz from Trombi re

Structural chart of the MCSO divisions (2007)

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

MCSO Memorandums regarding Video Recordings

Letter to Mr. Warshaw from Gerard Sheridan re

Redacted E-mail chain re "Scenarios for review

MCSO Memorandum from Palmer re "Video/Audio"

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

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

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

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

This is civil case 07-2513, Manuel de

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

This is the time set for an evidentiary hearing.

Counsel, please announce your appearance for the

Good morning, Your Honor.

the ACLU for the plaintiffs.

Good morning, Ms. Wang.

Good morning, Your Honor.

Andre Segura of the ACLU

Josh Bendor, ACLU of Arizona, for

Dan Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona, for

for the plaintiffs.

Covington & Burling, for the plaintiffs.

Good morning, Your Honor.