Upload
jack-ryan
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
1/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2712
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres,et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
Defendants.
)))
)))
)
)
)))
No. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS
Phoenix, Arizona
October 9, 2015
9:05 a.m.
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW
(Evidentiary Hearing Day 12, Pages 2712-2962)
Court Reporter: Gary Moll
401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38
Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263
Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
2/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2713
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Immigrants' Rights Project
By: Andre Segura, Esq.
125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004
American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148
Phoenix, Arizona 85011
Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Tammy Albarran, Esq.
1 Front Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Covington & Burling, LLP
By: Stanley Young, Esq.
By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065
For the Defendant Maricopa County:
Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.
By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center
16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140
Phoenix, Arizona 85254
For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC
By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.
P.O. Box 20527Phoenix, Arizona 85036
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
3/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2714
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:
Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC
By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.
By: John T. Masterson, Esq.
By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For the Intervenor United States of America:U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division
By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011Washington, D.C. 20004
For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP
By: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:
David Eisenberg, PLCBy: David Eisenberg, Esq.
2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio
Executive Chief Brian Sands
Chief Deputy Gerard SheridanLieutenant Joseph Sousa
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
4/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2715
I N D E X
Witness: Page
JOSEPH SOUSA
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Popolizio 2979Cross-Examination by Mr. Como 2772Cross-Examination by Mr. Walker 2782
Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang 2788Examination by the Court 2798Recross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio 2801
DAVID TENNYSON
Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Segura 2804Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Segura 2888
TRAVIS ANGLIN
Direct Examination by Ms. Morin 2828Cross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio 2874
Examination by the Court 2887
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
5/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2716
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
2006 MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Tennyson to 2818
Commander Bailey re HSU Criminal InquiryDated 8/28/2014 (MELC011163-MELC011165)
2007 E-mail from Keith Manning to David Tennyson re 2823Inquiry on HSU Criminal Inquiry dated 10/7/2014(MELC224940)
2025 MCSO Supplemental Report re DR 2014-009988 2943
(MELC140524)
2026 MCSO Supplemental Report re DR 2014-009988 2945
(MELC139207 - MELC139208)
2028 Interview with Sgt Baranyos by Sgt Tennyson 2917
(MELC226795-MELC226815)
2029 MCSO Internal Criminal Investigation, 2924Interview Det. Rick Lopez dated 7/15/2014
(MELC227797-MELC227812)
2030 Interview with Frank Gamboa by Sgt Tennyson 2830dated 7/8/2014 (MELC227265-MELC227271)
2079 Screen shots of text messages taken off 2838Travis Anglin's personal phone sent by Mike
Zullo (MELC199513-22)
2083 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin 2832
forwarding E-mail from Dennis Montgomeryto Mike Zullo with a subject line "Latest 1.5a"
dated 1/1/2014 (MELC199417)
2087 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Brian McDaniel 2833
copying Travis Anglin, forwarding E-mailfrom Mike Zullo to Dennis Montgomery with a
subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014(MELC199540-43)
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
6/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2717
E X H I B I T S
No. Description Admitted
2095 E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and Dennis 2859
Montgomery with a subject line "Phone" dated1/8/2014 (MELC199626-28)
2096 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin with 2861the "Rand Paul" subject line (MELC199377-80)2097 E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and
Travis Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21)
2097 Email chain between Mike Zullo and Travis 2833Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21)
2099 E-mail from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to 2867Travis Anglin with an E-mail chain attached,subject line "CIA" dated 7/17/2014
(MELC198244-45)
2540 E-mail from Joseph Sousa to Benjamin Armer 2765copying Russ Skinner FW: Scenarios for review
based on judge's order dated 1/13/2015
(MELC114949-54)
2841 Memorandum of Concern Regarding IA 014-295 2910
"Tennyson’s manifesto" (MELC1396962-
MELC13967030)
2849 Memorandum to G. Sheridan from D. Tennyson Re: 2899Theft of License Plates and Identification
(MELC1397097-MELC1397139)
2900A (MELC185239 - MELC185331) 2872
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
7/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2718
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Please be seated.
THE CLERK: Civil Case 07-2513, Manuel de Jesus
Ortega Melendres versus Joseph M. Arpaio and others. This is
the time set for continued evidentiary hearing.
Please announce your presence for the record.
MS. WANG: Good morning, Your Honor. Cecillia Wang
and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. MORIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Michelle Morin.
With me are Stan Young and Tammy Albarran of Covington &
Burling for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. POCHODA: Good morning. Dan Pochoda, ACLU of
Arizona, for plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul
Killebrew, and Cynthia Coe will be joining us later, for the
United States.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Good morning, Your Honor. Joseph
Popolizio and John Masterson of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli for
Sheriff Arpaio, and with us is Holly McGee.
THE COURT: Good morning.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
8/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2719
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker
on behalf of Maricopa County. And we might be joined later by
Mr. Jirauch.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald
making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como of
Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, representing Brian Sands.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WOODS: Good morning, Your Honor. Terry Woods for
that nonparties Stutz and Liddy.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele
Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed
contemnors.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. David
Eisenberg specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.
THE COURT: Good morning.
I have received overnight sometime the designation of
your witnesses. It's still not what I wanted. I want a single
document. So can you transmit it to plaintiffs, and then
plaintiffs, if you want to submit it back to me.
And I would also like for you to chart out scheduling,
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
9/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2720
and we can deal with final discovery disputes if you don't have
all the discovery you've requested, plaintiffs, as soon as I
get that document. I assume it will be Tuesday morning.
I don't mind, however, giving some reactions to see if
you can work things out to the extent I have reviewed
plaintiffs' supplemental. I mean, it seems to me that with
respect to witnesses who have not yet testified, I would hope
that we could combine their testimony. If you'll let me know
that you're doing that, I'll give you more leeway. But I don't
see why -- you're not going to call Fax any more, plaintiffs?
MS. WANG: No, we do not currently plan to, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. But you are going to call
Bailey? Are you calling Liddy?
MS. WANG: We are not.
THE COURT: Okay. But you are calling Bailey?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're calling Olson?
MS. WANG: Yes.
THE COURT: You're calling Zullo?
MS. WANG: Yes, contingent on -- he has not yet been
deposed, but we currently do plan to call him.
THE COURT: You're calling Mackiewicz?
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. By the way, on Mackiewicz
we need to revise our time estimate based on the deposition,
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
10/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:0
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2721
which has happened in the interim since we drafted this. We
would revise that estimate upward to two hours.
THE COURT: All right. Well, it does seem to me that
we ought to make every effort to combine where possible. Of
course, you have the right to call your case if you want, call
them in your case, but I would think it would be courteous to
your clients, and also to all participants, if it makes sense
to combine the testimony, let -- to do that.
As I said, I'll give you a lot of leeway on cross,
'cause I'll deal with it as it is your -- as if it is your
direct as well as your cross if -- if you feel like you can do
that without harming your case.
If in fact you proceed and call them separately, let
me give you my reactions at least. You want Chief Deputy
Sheridan to have three additional hours to testify about a
number of things pertaining to ethical and legal standards,
Internal Affairs investigations, the Charley Armendariz
investigation. I can see that. I mean, Chief Deputy Sheridan
has been involved in a lot of stuff. And I do think that a
fair amount of this was covered in his already several days of
testimony, and I don't intend to let you retrack over what he's
already say.
I've already got the time hours that he estimated in
terms of what it took to review the videotapes in the
Armendariz investigation. I'm not inclined to let you go into
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
11/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:0
09:0
09:0
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2722
that. But it does seem to me that he has played, and his
testimony is that he's played a major role in all those things,
and I'll allow him to testify and I'll give you up to three
hours.
I will tell you, though, that you list training
provided by the United States for MCSO deputies in the 287(g)
program. I don't think I'm going to let you get into that. I
don't know that it's relevant. If you can convince me it is, I
might give you a few questions, but I don't think we're going
to go into that in any detail.
Tom Liddy, in terms of gathering the video evidence, I
mean, you only asked for an hour. I think that's more than
you'll need, but I don't think it's an unreasonable request so
I'm inclined to give you an hour if that's what you'd like.
Bailey, also, of course, was involved, and has been
involved in the investigations. I would hope that we could, as
I said, combine his testimony. I don't intend to have him --
if I let Chief Deputy Sheridan testify for three hours on, you
know, general procedures and what they've done, I don't intend
to let Bailey track through all of that in exhaustive detail
all over again. And so I'd rather not give him two hours, I'd
rather do something like an hour and a half, although if you
use your time wisely, I'll give you up to two hours on Bailey
if you recall him.
Olson, I mean, I really think Olson's somebody we
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
12/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2723
should be able to combine. If you tell me otherwise, you
haven't asked for too much time, I'll give you an hour.
Fax. It seems to me that Fax, to the extent he was
involved in individual investigations that plaintiff is
bringing up ought to be able to discuss those individual
investigations. But to the extent you're going to discuss
overall effort, I'm not -- and I allow Bailey and Sheridan to
testify to those things, I'm not going to allow Fax to retrack
through all that.
You've asked for four hours. I can't see that it will
take four hours; I'll give you three. And then if you need
four, you can have four, if I think you've used it wisely, and
if I don't, I'm not going to give you any more than three.
And again, I'm not going to allow Fax to merely
retrack through what I'm already going to allow Sheridan and
Bailey to track through, because as I said yesterday, I've read
all the monitor's reports. I know what the efforts are. The
monitor, I think, has given praise where praise was due, and
clearly, in some areas you are due some praise and in others
areas your clients are not.
I have no idea why Stephanie Molina's going to testify
at all. She was only appointed to be chief of -- or the
captain over the Internal Affairs Division, by Chief Deputy
Sheridan's testimony, two or three weeks ago. And so unless
you can tell me why she should be allowed to testify, I'm not
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
13/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2724
inclined to allow her to do it.
Captain Russ Skinner, I don't know, my monitor has
never said anything other than that Captain Skinner has been
exemplary, and -- in his efforts to comply and in his efforts
to contact with the monitor. And I think that in light of the
fact that my monitor has said that, Captain Skinner is entitled
to time to testify, but I'm not going to give him three hours
and Farnsworth three hours. Farnsworth hasn't been on this
case, as far as I know, for more than a year. I think he was
removed about the same time that -- I don't really remember, to
be truthful. But I think he was removed, wasn't he, right
about the same time that Bailey was put in charge of PSB? I
can't see allowing Farnsworth to testify at all, unless you can
tell me something he can say that hasn't -- won't have already
been completely covered by Skinner, by Bailey, and by Sheridan.
So I will listen if you're going to tell me, but
I'm -- we can cut way down on Farnsworth and Skinner. In light
of the fact that Skinner has been exemplary, and my monitor's
never said anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to give you a
little bit more time with Skinner, if you want to establish a
case for compliance, than an hour. But again, I'm not
contesting -- I have no basis to contest, based on what my
monitor's said, that Skinner has not been other than exemplary,
and for that reason I'll give him an hour and a half, but I'm
not sure you need more.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
14/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2725
Those are my reactions. But as I said, I would just
as soon, if we can combine these, the ones that we combine, we
can combine, and we move quickly through the rest of them.
Any response to any of that?
MR. MASTERSON: No, not really, Judge. And I just
want to let you know that we will do our best to combine, if
possible, and not recall people, if we can do that and not
sacrifice a portion of our case.
THE COURT: Yeah, I understand that you are entitled
to present your case. But I would appreciate it if you can
combine them, without affecting your case, that you do that.
MR. MASTERSON: And so for everybody's convenience,
the Court, plaintiffs' counsel, and certainly the witness,
him- or herself, we will do our best to combine if we can.
And then I've made notes concerning your comments on
the other witnesses, and we'll do our best to reconsider in
certain situations and possibly pull a couple off that list.
THE COURT: All right. As for Sheriff Arpaio, you
really want 90 minutes? If I'm going to allow, you know,
Sheridan his full three and Bailey the two, do you want 90
minutes for Sheriff Arpaio?
MR. MASTERSON: If Chief Sheridan takes his three and
Captain Bailey takes his two, unless the sheriff's feeling
particularly talkative, I don't think he's going to take as
much time as we anticipate when we put that time -- time limit
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
15/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2726
down.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I am going to reserve
the right, even though I'm giving you time with all of them, if
we're just tracking over what we've had before, I don't see the
point.
Again, I have read the monitor's reports and they are
going to be most persuasive with me. But I do believe that
your point of yesterday is correct. Since I'm looking at the
attitude of the sheriff's department in responding to my
orders, I think you are entitled to put on some of the work
that you've done that underlies the monitor's report, and I
will allow a reasonable amount of time to do that, but I'm not
going to allow excessive time.
MR. MASTERSON: Understood, Judge, and we'll try our
best to avoid any redundancy.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
Are we ready then to --
Oh, you have another matters?
MS. WANG: I apologize, Your Honor. Just a couple of
points. Plaintiffs would object, to the extent defendants
would have witnesses who have already testified, rehash ground
that's already been covered in examinations.
THE COURT: Let me just say that if you make that
object- -- if I allow them to testify and you make that
objection, I'm going to be sympathetic to it if I've heard it
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
16/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2727
before. But for the reasons I've indicated to Mr. Masterson, I
think they're entitled to have their say on at least underlying
efforts.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
One other point is that we, as I said yesterday, have
not had a chance to depose Deputy Garcia yet, and so we may
call him as well, depending on the outcome of that deposition.
THE COURT: All right. Well, can you -- can you both
combine these documents? Can you talk about -- the other thing
I'd like you to do is talk about scheduling days so that we can
coordinate witnesses for the rest of the time we have
available, so that you know what days you're going to have, and
I have to know what days I'm going to have.
I mean, I know that you all have other cases. You
have maybe 16 or 17 other cases you're working on. I have 500.
May not be quite that many, but it's a lot of cases. I really
do need my time.
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor, we can do that.
THE COURT: And I need to know what I'm going to have.
So I would appreciate it if when you work that out,
and I realize defendants want to reserve the right in light
ofyour reservation right, I get all that, and I understand
there's been unusual circumstances, but I still think you need
to work out a schedule in light of what I've suggested I'm
going to give, and then let's move with that. Okay?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
17/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2728
MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. COMO: Your Honor, while we're talking about
scheduling, I did want to notify the Court that my last day
with our law firm is October 30th. So we're going to be
transitioning another partner to take over if the hearing is
still going beyond that date, but I do --
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COMO: -- want to alert the Court of that.
THE COURT: Have you identified who that partner is?
MR. COMO: Craig Murdy is --
THE COURT: All right. And he's already been
involved.
MR. COMO: Yes, he has, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, as I've said before,
congratulations to you, Mr. Como, and --
MR. COMO: Thank you.
THE COURT: -- I hope the bench will be all that you
hope it will be.
MR. COMO: I hope so, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You ready to resume, Mr. Popolizio?
MR. POPOLIZIO: I am, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
18/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2729
JOSEPH SOUSA,
recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly
sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Good morning, Your Honor.
Good morning, Lieutenant Sousa.
A. Good morning, sir.
Q. I hear there's a little frog in your throat, is that
correct?
A. Ugh, either the flu or allergies.
Q. Breathe over to that side, that wall.
THE COURT: That's what you get for breaking our
chair.
THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Lieutenant, when there is an important issue such as a
preliminary injunction being issued, is there a protocol to
follow at MCSO with regard to briefing deputies in your
command?
A. Back in 2011, the protocol at the MCSO was commanders would
brief sergeants during staff meetings, sergeants would brief
the deputies.
Q. Okay. And did you follow this protocol with regard to the
preliminary injunction issued in this case?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
19/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:1
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2730
A. It was my normal routine to brief my sergeants, but I don't
have -- it's been three -- over three and a half years. I
can't remember it specifically. I can't remember any of my
briefings three and a half years ago.
Q. Well, did you discuss the preliminary injunction with
Sergeant Palmer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many sergeants did you have at HSU at the time the
preliminary injunction was issued?
A. Two.
Q. And who was the other besides Sergeant Palmer?
A. Sergeant Trowbridge.
Q. And did you brief both sergeants with regard to the
preliminary injunction?
A. Sergeant Trowbridge was copied on the e-mail string that
Sergeant Palmer sent me with the scenarios.
Q. Would you also have staff meetings while you were at HSU?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you remember if you had a staff meeting shortly after
the issuance of the preliminary injunction?
A. That would have been my normal routine, to have staff
meetings.
Q. Okay. Do you remember addressing the preliminary
injunction at a staff meeting at HSU?
A. I can't remember anything from three years ago at
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
20/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2731
briefings, sir.
Q. You could have, but you just don't recall.
A. Correct, I -- it's been over three years.
Q. Do you know if --
THE COURT: Lieutenant, can I interrupt?
Who attends staff meetings?
THE WITNESS: My sergeants, sir.
THE COURT: Just you and your sergeants?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Now, I think you said command briefs sergeants, who brief
the deputies, is that right?
A. Back then, that was the routine.
Q. Okay. Do you know if Sergeant Palmer briefed HSU deputies
regarding the preliminary injunction?
A. Based on sitting in this courtroom in April, that's what
Sergeant Palmer testified, that he did training with the HSU
deputies.
Q. And the training would be on the preliminary injunction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been here for every day of this hearing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Again, were you here for all of Mr. Casey's testimony
during this hearing?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
21/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2732
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you listen to all of his testimony?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Casey testifying something to the effect
that HSU personnel were happy when the preliminary injunction
was issued?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. First, did you personally express to Mr. Casey that you
were happy that the preliminary injunction issued?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know if any of the deputies under your command at
HSU expressed to Mr. Casey that they were happy that the
preliminary injunction issued?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you recall during your tenure at HSU if your men were
happy about something that affected the way they enforced
immigration law?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what do you recall the deputies being happy about?
A. In 2009, when we lost the 287(g) program, internally at HSU
we were actually happy about it, 'cause it lessened our
administrative duties.
Q. And what did lessen your -- what does lessen your
investigative duties mean?
A. I no longer had to report to ICE under the 287 program. I
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
22/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2733
no longer had to keep them apprised of certain things. Our
guys no longer had to do training under their programs.
Q. So when was that happiness expressed, if you recall?
A. I expressed that to Mr. Casey around 2009 during the
depositions, and I believe in depositions leading up to this I
also made that statement, leading up to trial.
Q. And you know when this preliminary injunction was issued,
correct, in this case?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when was that?
A. 2011, I believe; December 23rd, I believe.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
There was some testimony yesterday regarding
predetermination hearings.
THE COURT: Can I do something for you?
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir.
THE COURT: That's all right. You don't need to be
sorry.
THE WITNESS: I can -- I'll get through it, Boss. I'm
sorry.
THE COURT: Well, that's okay. I just -- you need
some water?
THE WITNESS: I have it, sir. I'll get through, sir.
I'm sorry.
THE COURT: That's all right.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
23/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2734
THE WITNESS: I don't want to come -- I don't want to
have to come back up here tomorrow, so I just want to press on,
if it's all right.
MR. POPOLIZIO: I was checking for a cough drop and I
do not have one.
THE COURT: Oh, I think I can find one.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Mr. Segura has one, if you'd like.
THE WITNESS: Can I trust them?
MR. POPOLIZIO: I think you can.
THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you, sir.
(Pause in proceedings.)
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. All right. So yesterday do you recall some questions being
asked about predetermination hearings?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And, Lieutenant, did you avail yourself to the
predetermination hearing process with regard to IA 14-542?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And did you, in that predetermination process,
address Chief Olson in a hearing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recall yesterday if Ms. Wang asked you --
"Wong," I'm sorry.
MS. WANG: No problem.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
24/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2735
Q. -- asked you yesterday whether it was a valid defense to a
complaint that you simply did not remember seeing
Sergeant Madrid's memo?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Well, in your predetermination hearing did you
provide Chief Olson with reasons that you felt justified that
you should not be disciplined?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you author a memo including those reasons?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you provide that memo to Chief Olson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you discuss the reasons set forth in that memo with
Chief Olson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was the fact that you didn't recall seeing
Sergeant Madrid's memo the only reason you gave Chief Olson
that you should not be disciplined?
A. Not the only reason.
Q. And the reasons are set forth in that memo?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, let's turn back to the preliminary injunction.
THE COURT: Before you do that, I'm just trying to
keep track of things as we go.
Sergeant Madrid's memo, I'm sorry, I should remember
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
25/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2736
this from yesterday, but was that related to the complaint, the
citizen complaints that were being made about Deputy
Armendariz?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Or was it the $300? I've forgotten which.
THE WITNESS: I believe the memo was reference the
purse and the missing $300.
THE COURT: Okay. So the memo was about the $300, but
it was -- it didn't deal so much with the citizen's complaint
issue?
THE WITNESS: The memo was -- that was just -- that
was just one complaint.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. You mentioned a few times in your testimony the sending of
e-mails, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You also -- well, strike that.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, I'd like to show the
witness what's in evidence as Exhibit 2537.
THE COURT: Would you like it published? It's in
evidence.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may publish. Lisa, thank you.
Let me just ask counsel: Do we have double-tracking
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
26/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
09:2
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2737
of some of these exhibits? Are they admitted twice?
MR. POPOLIZIO: I think there are exhibits that are --
that are duplicative.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. POPOLIZIO: But I know for a fact this is in
evidence.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Admitted on 9-29, Your Honor.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Okay. Do you have before you Exhibit 2537?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, Lieutenant Sousa, could you go to the e-mail
dated January 11, 2012.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And this is an e-mail from you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is this the e-mail that you were talking about earlier that
you sent to Sergeant Palmer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what's the title on this e-mail?
A. The subject is "Putting out training reference the court
order."
Q. Okay. And when you say reference the court order in that
e-mail, what court order are you referring to?
A. Judge Snow's December 2011 preliminary injunction.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
27/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:2
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2738
Q. Okay. And when you use the words "putting out training,"
what do you intend that to mean?
A. Training to ensure that we're in compliance with the court
order.
Q. Now, you sent this e-mail to some other individuals,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, looking at your e-mail, Lieutenant Sousa, the
e-mail dated January 11, 2012, you sent this to Brett Palmer,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You also sent this e-mail to yourself, is that
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why?
A. When I wanted to keep track of something, I always sent it
to myself so it's in my in-box so I keep -- so I can keep it in
front of me every time I open up my e-mail.
Q. Okay. So now -- so it was a way to track it yourself.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, aside from Sergeant Palmer, there were a number
people carbon-copied on this e-mail, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And let's take them one at a time.
You sent a copy of this e-mail to Tim Casey?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
28/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2739
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Why did you send a copy of this particular e-mail to
Tim Casey?
A. He was our attorney of record on the Melendres matter, and
it would be a heads-up that this is coming.
Q. Okay. Now, as counsel, as Mr. Casey being your counsel on
the Melendres matter, did you value his input?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because he's an attorney that can interpret what we write,
see if we're within the order.
Q. Did you, as a lieutenant with MCSO working in HSU, feel
qualified to provide legal advice regarding this preliminary
injunction?
A. Legal advice, no.
Q. Did you feel that any of the individuals under your command
were qualified to provide legal advice with regard to the
preliminary injunction?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. And why not?
A. We're not lawyers.
Q. Now, there's a -- the next individual after Mr. Casey on
the carbon copied line, there's a name there. What is that
name?
A. Rollie Seebert.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
29/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2740
Q. Okay. And it says Rollie Seebert, and then there's, right
after his name, Sheriff with an X, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Who is Rollie Seebert?
A. I believe at the time he was the director of the training
division.
Q. Okay. And why did you include -- did you say "director"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you include Director Seebert on this e-mail?
A. Once again, a heads-up that this was coming.
Q. Okay. That what was coming?
A. The training scenarios to be put out.
Q. Okay. The next name there is whose name? In the e-mail
chain under the carbon copy.
A. Brian Sands.
Q. Okay. And Brian Sands was your chief at the time?
A. Three star, I believe executive chief.
Q. Okay. Was he in your chain of command?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And why did you send this e-mail to Chief Sands?
A. So he was in the loop of what we were doing.
Q. And why is that important to you as a lieutenant in HSU?
A. So my commanders know what I'm doing.
Q. Is that something that you would normally think it would be
important, to have your commanders know what you were doing?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
30/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2741
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And why is that?
A. 'Cause it's -- the order was important. We needed to get
something in writing.
Q. Is this the only time that you would have chosen to cc
Chief Sands on an e-mail with regard to HSU business?
A. I'm sure I've cc'd him on a lot of HSU business.
Q. And you also cc'd Chief Trombi, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And why is that?
A. He was my direct supervisor.
Q. Now, there's a name here, Eileen Henry. Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who is Eileen Henry?
A. She's either a -- she works in Tim Casey's office. I don't
remember if she's a paralegal or an office assistant, but
usually, if I wanted to also make sure Mr. Casey was aware of
something, if I went to Eileen I would -- there would be
chances that she would let him know about it.
Q. Okay. Did Eileen Henry respond to you, to this e-mail? If
you recall.
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, looking at this e-mail of January 11, 2012, do you see
where there's boldface type?
A. Yes, sir.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
31/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2742
Q. And right above the boldface type are three words. What
are those words?
A. "Judge Snow's order."
Q. Okay. Would you do me a favor? I know that you have the
frog in your throat, but would you do me a favor and read the
boldface type that you placed in this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir. "The Court is enjoining the MCSO 'from detaining
any person based solely on knowledge, without more, that the
person is in the country without lawful -- lawful authority.
To be clear, the Court is not enjoining MCSO from enforcing
valid state laws, or detaining individuals when officers have
reasonable suspicion that individuals are violating a state
criminal law. Instead, it is enjoining MCSO from violating
federal rights protected by the United States Constitution in
the process of enforcing valid state law based on an incorrect
understanding of the law.'"
Q. Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Before I follow up, Your Honor, may I
give the lieutenant some cough drops?
THE COURT: Sure.
THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir.
MS. WANG: Let the record reflect they're from
plaintiffs.
THE WITNESS: I apologize, sir.
THE COURT: That's all right.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
32/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2743
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
clerk.)
THE COURT: Which two monitors do we have out?
MR. McDONALD: Judge, these two here are out. Just
these two are out.
THE COURT: Do you object if we proceed if we bring
somebody up to fix those monitors, or do you want to break
while we get them fixed?
MR. McDONALD: I personally don't object. I'm taking
careful notes. I can't speak for the others.
MR. COMO: I'm fine, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I hope it won't be too
much of a disruption, but we're going to have somebody from
our --
MR. McDONALD: Thank you.
THE COURT: -- IT staff come up during trial.
(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the
clerk.)
THE COURT: Well, what we'll do is we'll leave that
monitor on on the far wall unless, Mr. Popolizio, you're going
to introduce something that has not yet been admitted into
evidence.
MR. POPOLIZIO: There will be one exhibit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. And in that case, what we will
do is take that monitor down unless and until we admit the
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
33/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
09:3
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2744
exhibit.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And if you need to look at it, Mr. Como,
Mr. McDonald, if we could just have you step over, do whatever
you need to, we'll try to accommodate you.
MR. McDONALD: Thank you, Judge.
MR. COMO: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Also, for whatever it's worth, I
turned that monitor towards them.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Okay. Back to where we were, Lieutenant.
You just read the boldface type in your e-mail.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that boldface type appears under three words that says
"Judge Snow's order."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Is that part of Judge Snow's order?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you type a part of Judge Snow's order into this
e-mail?
A. Because I believed that was the meat and potatoes of the
order, and I wanted everyone copied in the string to know what
the scenarios were referencing.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
34/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:3
09:3
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2745
Q. And why did you boldface it?
A. I believe I cut and pasted it right out of Tim Casey's
e-mail like that, sir.
Q. Now, this e-mail is specifically addressed to
Sergeant Palmer, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He's "Brett"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, look at the first line in the first paragraph
under the name "Bret."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. It says: "Per our phone conversation write up a
couple of scenarios (right way and wrong way) based on Judge
Snow's order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey."
Could you highlight that, please.
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, do you recall having a phone conversation with
Sergeant Palmer with regard to training scenarios?
A. As I sit here today, I don't recall the conversation, but
it's obvious I had one.
Q. Now, did you want Sergeant Palmer to draw up training
scenarios with regard to the preliminary injunction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you order him to do so?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
35/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2746
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, here it says "right way/wrong way."
Do you see that? In parens?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you tell Sergeant Palmer to draw up training
scenarios in both -- that would be both right and wrong under
the preliminary injunction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Why did you tell him to do that?
A. So we had examples of how -- what was the right thing to do
and what was the wrong thing to do.
Q. So okay. So why would you want the wrong way to do things?
A. So deputies know not what -- what not to do.
Q. And the right way would tell them what?
A. The right way to do it.
Q. Okay. And was it your idea to put forth both right way and
wrong way?
A. That's what it looks like.
Q. In any event, you told Sergeant Palmer to do that, is that
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, it says here in the e-mail, in that first line
that is highlighted right now, "and your conversations with Tim
Casey." Do you see that? First line.
First line highlighted. It's the second line,
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
36/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2747
actually, first sentence. Do you see it?
A. We still on the first page?
Q. Okay. On the January 11, 2012 e-mail, under "Bret" there's
a highlighted -- if you look on the screen there's a
highlighted sentence. Starts off "Per our phone conversation."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. It reads: "Per our phone conversation write a
couple of -- write up a couple of scenarios (right way and
wrong way) based on Judge Snow's order to MCSO and your
conversations with Tim Casey."
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you know if Sergeant Palmer had conversations
with Tim Casey?
A. I'm sure he did if I wrote it.
Q. And your memory would be better on January 11, 2012, than
it would be today with regard to this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Is there any reason that you would -- you would type
in "your conversations with Tim Casey" if you believed that
Sergeant Palmer did not have conversations with Tim Casey?
A. No, he would -- if I typed it, it's 'cause he had a
conversation with him.
Q. Okay. What did you intend to do with the training
scenarios once you received them from Sergeant Palmer?
A. Send them off to Mr. Casey.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
37/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2748
Q. Okay. And why did you intend to do that?
A. So he could tell us if the scenarios were on track. These
were going to be rough drafts, so we could get them to where we
need to get them to be within the order.
Q. Okay. Now, you also sent them to Chief Sands. Well, you
also sent this e-mail to Chief Sands, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Were you looking for any input from Chief Sands?
A. It's been so long, sir, I -- I can't remember.
Q. Okay. Why would you put Chief Sands on this e-mail, again?
A. So he was in the -- so he was in the loop on what we were
doing.
Q. As a lieutenant in HSU, would you be able to just submit
training scenarios to training at MCSO?
A. No.
Q. Okay. How would that happen, then?
A. I would need the permission of an executive chief or -- or
my direct chief.
Q. Okay. And is your executive chief on this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is your direct chief on this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, in fact, if you look at your -- your e-mail,
this is the January 11, 2012 e-mail, let's look at the second
sentence in the first paragraph.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
38/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2749
Okay. Second sentence. Would you read that to me,
please. Begins "I will."
A. "I will have Tim review what you write up and have Chief
Sands sign off on it."
Q. Okay. Does that reflect your intent with regard to the
training scenarios that you wanted Sergeant Palmer to draw up?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, the next sentence, read that to me. "Once all"
starts.
A. "Once all that is done we will get with training reference
putting something out in E-Learning."
Q. Okay. Now, when you say you will "get with training," who
will you get with?
A. I don't know who the staff is over there, but it would have
probably been one of their lieutenants, or with the director.
Q. Okay. And the director is who?
A. Rollie Seebert.
Q. Okay.
A. But most likely, I would have dealt it to one of his
subordinates.
Q. And could you tell me, if you know, what E-Learning is?
A. It's online training at the Sheriff's Office.
Q. So in terms of training with regard to any scenarios to be
developed for this preliminary injunction, you wanted them to
go out as E-Learning?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
39/251
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
40/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:4
09:5
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2751
Q. Now, Lieutenant, why did you choose Sergeant Palmer for the
particular task of developing training scenarios?
A. He was the senior sergeant and had the most time in the
field.
Q. Was he experienced with HSU operations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He had the most time out in the field, you said?
A. For sergeants, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And how long had he been with HSU?
A. Probably close to three years; I could be wrong on that.
Q. Now, do you recall Mr. Casey testifying that he had some
concerns that Sergeant Palmer did not understand the
preliminary injunction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you ever expect that Sergeant Palmer's training
scenarios would be the final version of any training that would
be issued at MCSO?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. And why not?
A. I expected whatever our attorney signed off on to be the
final product.
Q. Now, still looking at Exhibit 2537, there's an e-mail above
the January 11th e-mail. It's dated January 11th also, but at
4:02 p.m.
Do you see that?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
41/251
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
42/251
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
43/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2754
Q. And is there any -- anybody else copied on that e-mail?
A. Tim Casey and Sergeant Trowbridge.
Q. And do you recognize this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what is this e-mail?
A. He's sending me the rough drafts of the scenarios.
Q. So these are the training scenarios we've heard so much
about in this hearing?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. These are the drafts that Sergeant Palmer provided you
according to your order for him to do so?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how many training scenarios are there?
THE COURT: Mr. Popolizio?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.
THE COURT: You got it? All right.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Sorry.
A. Four.
Q. Okay. Did you tell Sergeant Palmer to draw up four?
A. I don't believe I gave him a specific number.
Q. Okay. You just said "draw up right way/wrong way"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any expectations on how many he would draw up?
A. I don't recall, sir.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
44/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2755
Q. Now, just scrolling down this e-mail, there are actual
headings on this e-mail with regard to each scenario, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So you have Scenario 1.
You see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Scenario 2?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Scenario 3?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Scenario 4?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, look at the -- well, let's see here.
Look at the first paragraph of this January 19, 2012
e-mail. Starts with the word "Below."
See that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Because your voice is a little bit weak, I'm going
to read that sentence to you. "Below is my rough construction
of an eLearning segment based on Judge Snow's order."
Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Do you know if you discussed with Sergeant Palmer
the prospect of creating an E-Learning course regarding
training scenarios for this preliminary injunction?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
45/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2756
A. I have no specific memory, 'cause it's been so long, but
based on what's written here, I'm sure we discussed it.
Q. Okay. Now, it says there "my rough construction."
You see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What do you believe that to mean here with regard to these
scenarios?
A. That this was not a final product.
Q. Okay. And the final product would be a product of input
from whom?
A. Tim Casey.
Q. Now, the next sentence states: "I constructed this in
accordance with the many conversations you & I have had, as
well as taking into account the information conveyed to us from
Tim Casey concerning Judge Snow's order."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. So at least according to this e-mail, you had more
than one conversation -- well, did you have more than one
conversation with Sergeant Palmer?
A. Based on the e-mail, I'm assuming I did.
Q. Okay. Do you doubt that you had more than one conversation
with Sergeant Palmer?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
46/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
09:5
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2757
A. I'm sure we had several conversations.
Q. Regarding this preliminary injunction and the training.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, Sergeant Palmer states, "as well as taking into
account the information conveyed to us both from Tim Casey
concerning Judge Snow's order."
Do you see that? The end of that sentence.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And I know that you testified to this yesterday but
we're skipping to the next day. Did Tim Casey ever provide you
any information with regarding -- with regard to AOR in this
preliminary injunction?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. When you look at these training scenarios, is AOR
mentioned anywhere?
A. No, sir.
Q. You can take the highlight off now.
Do you see about the fourth line down in that first
paragraph, you see the words "I think"? See that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. It states here: "I think it is imperative that Tim
Casey review this and any training material I am asked to
create that could be used to instruct Deputies in this very
sensitive area."
Do you see that?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
47/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
09:5
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2758
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And those are Sergeant Palmer's words to you in this
e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that reflect your intent with regard to the training?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you agree that it's imperative that Tim Casey review
any training scenarios regarding this order?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that because he was your counsel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, there's a paragraph, the second paragraph has a
heading, says "Training Directive."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, second line down, the second sentence starts
"It is." Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. States here: "It is important that the Deputies and
the Supervisors understand the scope to which they are
empowered to act in these scenarios, as limits have recently
been set by Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court case."
Did I read that correctly?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Was it important to you that MCSO personnel
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
48/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2759
understood the scope of their powers under the preliminary
injunction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And why is that?
A. So we're operating within the law and the order.
Q. Okay. And that's important as a -- as a deputy in the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?
A. Yes, sir.
MS. WANG: Objection, leading.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Is that important to you as a -- as an MCSO deputy?
MS. WANG: Objection, leading.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor?
THE COURT: I'm going to allow that one.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Was it important to you when this injunction was issued?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It's important to you now?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it important to you when you asked Sergeant Palmer to
develop these training scenarios?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Going back to that second paragraph --
You can take the highlight off.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
49/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2760
Do you see the sentence that starts off, "The order
issued by"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. It states: "The order issued by Judge Snow states
that MCSO cannot detain any person based solely on the
suspicion they are an illegal alien present in the United
States."
Did I read that correctly?
MS. WANG: Your Honor --
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
MS. WANG: -- objection, 403, as to continued lengthy
reading from an exhibit in evidence.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, I'd like to say that I
would -- it's in evidence and I can, and I'm trying to save the
lieutenant's voice.
THE COURT: Well, that's okay. I mean, I'm going to
allow it. I've allowed the plaintiffs to read from exhibits.
But I do think lengthy reading of exhibits that I can read
myself is sometimes quite exhaustive. But I've allowed
plaintiffs to do it, I'm going to allow you to do it up to a
limited extent.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Um-hum.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Lieutenant Sousa, do you agree with that sentence?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
50/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2761
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, is that a limitation that you understood as ordered by
this Court?
A. That we couldn't make the arrest, yes, sir.
Q. Now, the next sentence. Starts "What this means."
Do you see that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Highlight that, please.
MR. POPOLIZIO: And I am going to read this one, Your
Honor, but I'm mindful of your instruction.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. The sentence states: "What this means is that any Deputy
who has contact with a person and during the contact, the
Deputy arrives at the reasonable suspicion through articulable
indicators that the person may be an illegal alien in the
United States, cannot and will not detain or further the
detainment of this person without having more than just this
singular suspicion."
Did I read that correctly?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Do you agree with that sentence?
A. Correct. We can't make that arrest and we can't detain
them for that purpose.
Q. Okay. Was what Sergeant Palmer stated there in this
e-mail, under the Training Directive, consistent with your
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
51/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2762
understanding of the order at the time? The judge's order.
A. Correct. I believed during the traffic stop we could make
the phone call, and then once we made the phone call to ICE
during the course of the traffic stop, and if they said to
detain them, that would be their detainment.
Q. Okay. Let's scroll up to the January 24, 2012 e-mail.
Do you see where I am, Lieutenant?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. You sent this e-mail?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And who'd you send the e-mail to?
A. Tim Casey.
Q. Okay. And there are other people cc'd on that -- on this
e-mail, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Is this the e-mail by which you forwarded the
training scenarios to Tim Casey?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what date did you do that?
A. January 24th.
Q. And did you ask Tim Casey to give you a call once he had
reviewed the scenarios?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you receive a call from Tim Casey in response to this
e-mail?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
52/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
10:0
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2763
A. Based on this string of e-mails, no, sir.
Q. Okay. Let's go to the next e-mail up in the chain.
Well, strike that.
Why did you ask Mr. Casey to give you a call,
Lieutenant, once he had reviewed these e-mails?
A. I'm pretty sure at the time I wanted to talk to him about
them and talk about his opinion on his initial review.
Q. After sending this e-mail, did you attempt to follow up
with Mr. Casey?
A. I believe I sent another e-mail when I hadn't heard from
him.
Q. Okay.
MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, may I show the witness
what is marked as Exhibit 2540? It's not in evidence.
THE COURT: 2540?
MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.
THE COURT: Sure.
But let's just show it to the witness, please, Lisa.
BY MR. POPOLIZIO:
Q. Could you just look this -- this document over, please.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recognize this e-mail chain?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what do you recognize the subject of this e-mail chain
to be?
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
53/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:0
10:0
10:1
10:1
10:1
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2764
A. I believe this was a string of e-mails I had saved that I
found.
Q. Regarding what?
A. The judge's order.
Q. Okay. Is this an e-mail chain regarding training scenarios
for review, based on the judge's order?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you recognize the first three e-mails in this chain?
A. Can we scroll?
Yes, sir.
Q. And what do you recognize these three e-mails to be?
A. It's the e-mails I sent.
Q. About what?
A. The judge's order.
Q. Okay. And are there four other e-mails in this chain?
Do you have the paper in front of you? It might be
easier.
A. I've got it in front of me, sir.
Q. Okay. So are there four other e-mails in that chain?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do those e-mails also relate to the training scenarios?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were these e-mails sent or received, to your knowledge, at
or near the dates that appear on these e-mails?
A. Yes, sir.
8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing
54/251
F R I E N D
O F T
H E F O G
B O W . C
M12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
10:1
Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearin