Attorneys for Arpaio Remedies

8/16/2019 Attorneys for Arpaio Remedies

1/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/16

John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Justin M. Ackerman, Bar #030726JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700Phoenix, Arizona 85004Telephone: (602) 263-1700Fax: (602) 200-7846 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio inhis official capacity as Sheriff of MaricopaCounty, AZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendant.

NO. CV 07-02513-PHX-GMS

DEFENDANTS RESPONSIVEMEMORANDUM TO COURT’SFINDINGS OF FACT (DOC. 1677)

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan, and Lieutenan

Joseph Sousa (“Defendants”) were devastated to read the Court’s Findings of Fact. They

desire to do everything in their power to restore the Court’s and community’s confidence

in them and the Maricopa County Sheriffs’ Office (“MCSO”). In that spirit, they are

committed to working with this Court and the Plaintiffs to fashion remedies that addres

the Court’s findings of civil contempt.

To that end, Defendants propose the following remedies, which are

generally described below and are more fully set forth in this responsive memorandum:

Compensation of affected members of the Plaintiff classfor violations of the Court’s preliminary injunction.

Sheriff Arpaio and the Chief Deputy, with the Court’sapproval, will make a substantial personal contribution to acivil rights organization in Maricopa County committed to

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1687 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 12


2/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/162

protecting the constitutional and civil rights of theHispanic Community.

The Chief Deputy will accept the original policy violationfindings of Donald Vogel that Chief Michael Olson previously sustained, and accept discipline for thosefindings pursuant to the disciplinary matrix.

MCSO will institute new IA investigations as identified bythe Court’s Findings of Fact.

Vest authority over new IA investigations related to theinterests of the Plaintiff class in an independent authority.

Sheriff Arpaio and the Chief Deputy will publiclyacknowledge violations of the Court’s Orders.

Revise or draft new policies, including policies relevant togrievance procedures.

Institute appropriate training and supervision as a result ofthe deficiencies identified in the Court’s Findings of Fact.

Plaintiffs may apply for their reasonable attorneys’ fees forthe contempt proceedings.

Defendants have attempted to fashion civil remedies that meaningfully

address all of the concerns and issues identified in the Court’s Findings of Fact. See

Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 801 (1987). However, in the

event the Court does not find these suggested remedies to be sufficient, Defendantrespectfully request that the Court grant them the opportunity to address the Court’

concerns by developing remedies that are responsive.

I. COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS FORVIOLATIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (COUNT I).

Defendants want to compensate members of the Plaintiff class for injurie

that may have occurred as a result of the past failures to take reasonable steps to

implement the Court’s preliminary injunction. [Doc. 1677 at ¶ 879].

A. Defendants proposed remedies in light of the Court’s Findings of Facrelated to Count I.

Defendants propose the following remedies in light of the Court’s Finding

of Fact related to Count I.



3/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/163

1. Sheriff Arpaio and the Chief Deputy will contribute a total of$100,000 to a civil rights organization.

Consistent with Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy Sheridan’s origina

commitment prior to the contempt trial, they reiterate that, with the Court’s approval, they

will personally contribute $100,000 to a civil rights organization, acceptable to the Court

based in Maricopa County, which is committed to protecting the constitutional and civi

rights of the Hispanic community.

2. Joint proposed compensation scheme designed to address thecontemnors’ violation of the preliminary injunction.

The parties have worked collaboratively during and after the ongoing

contempt proceedings to draft a combined proposal for notice and compensation to the

Plaintiff class to remedy Sheriff Arpaio’s and the other civil contemnors’ violation of th

Court’s preliminary injunction. Attached is the most recent draft dated May 26, 2016

[Exhibit A]. The following is a summary of the main provisions of this draft agreement

which includes appointing an agreed upon, third-party, neutral claims administrato

(BrownGreer), the procedure for notice to potential participants, a claims adjudication

plan, and a compensation scheme:

Individuals detained in violation of the Court’s PreliminaryInjunction will be eligible for compensation. [Ex. A at 2].

The appointment of a third-party neutral claimsadministrator (BrownGreer). [ Id. at 1].

This claims administrator will provide notice to the purported victims of the Contemnors’ failure to takereasonable steps to implement the Court’s preliminaryinjunction. [ Id. at 2-3].

Any Claimant who comes forward will be required tocomplete a basic intake form under oath [id. at 4] that will

permit the neutral claims administrator to make adetermination on whether the claimant meets the eligibilityrequirements for participation in the program. [ Id. at 4-5].

Eligibility for compensation will be broken into two tracks:A or B. [ Id. at 5].

Track A individuals are those who are “prequalified” toreceive compensation based on the information containedin the intake form. [ Id.].



4/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/164

Track B individuals are those who do not fit into track Aand will be required to establish a prima facie case of a preliminary injunction violation. [ Id. at 5-7].

If a claimant meets the prima face case requirements ofTrack B, MCSO must come forward with competentevidence that casts doubt on one or more of the elements ofthe claim in a timely fashion. [ Id. at 7-8].

Claimants under Track B will also be able to establisheligibility for compensation for additional injuries, such asdamages from physical harm and/or severe emotionaldistress from the detention, lost property, lost wages, andother harms. [ Id. at 8-10].

A minimum amount of compensation for detention. [ Id. at12].

The parties are continuing to negotiate in good faith the specific parameters

of the compensation scheme. The remaining areas to be agreed upon include:

The applicable time-span for alleged violations that would be eligible;

Whether remedies apply to traffic stops only as delineatedin the Court’s Preliminary Injunction;

Initial budget regarding notice for the outside vendorBrownGreer;

Details of the encounter to include a precise date or a

limited range;

What evidence constitutes proof that the encounter waswith MCSO;

The time-frame by which MCSO must rebut the claim;

The cap on “additional damages” including emotionaldistress, lost wages, lost property, and other costs;

The rate of damages for length of detention, and whetherthe detention includes that by ICE/CBP or MCSO;

The need for a social security number and/or taxdocuments as it relates to compensation for medicalexpenses and other compensable damages;

The minimum compensation rate for detention;

Whether the claim documents are public record; and

Whether returned claims that are incomplete or otherwisecontained deficiencies can be cured.



5/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/165

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees for this process.

Sheriff Arpaio and the other civil contemnors reiterate that they are committed to ensuring

that the violations of the Court’s preliminary injunction found in Count I of the Court’s

Findings of Fact are remedied and adequate compensation is paid to the individuals who

come forward.1

B. Maricopa County is taking the position that it might not be liable forremedies based on “willful” or “intentional” behavior.

On May 20, 2016, Maricopa County informed Sheriff Arpaio and the other

civil contemnors that to the extent this Court “imposes measures in this action designed to

remedy willful and/or intentional violations of the court’s orders,” the County may “take

the position that it cannot be found liable for the financial consequences for such

remedies.” [5/20/16 Maricopa County Letter, attached as Exhibit B]. This appears to be

an about-face from the County’s previous position to Plaintiffs that it would indemnify the

Sheriff, regardless of any willful contemptuous conduct found by this Court, for any

remedies ordered by the Court “designed to compensate individuals whose rights were

violated as a result of detentions incident to traffic stops conducted in violation of the

court’s preliminary injunction.” [6/2/15 Maricopa County Letter, attached as Exhibit C]While the County has not made a final determination on whether it will indemnify Sheriff

Arpaio and the other civil contemnors, Sheriff Arpaio brings this issue to the Court’s

attention because it may affect any potential relief (financial or injunctive) the Cour

might order.

In any event, Defendants believe that the County has no legal authority to

deny liability, even if the Court’s remedies are tied to “intentional” findings. The Ninth

Circuit opinion in this case establishes that because Sheriff Arpaio is a defendant only in

1In the spirit of ensuring adequate compensation to the Plaintiff class, Defendant

also point out to the Court that there might be an issue with providing compensatoryfinancial relief under Count I because the Plaintiff class has been certified only foinjunctive relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). To the extent any modification of theclass is necessary to accomplish compensation, Defendants will assist with any procedurethis Court deems necessary.



6/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/166

his official capacity, the County is the proper party to this action, and therefore, liable for

the remedies ordered by this Court. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th

Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Maricopa County, Ariz. v. Melendres, 136 S. Ct. 799

193 L. Ed. 2d 711 (2016) (ordering that Maricopa County be substituted as a party in lieu

of MCSO because “an official capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be

treated as a suit against the entity.”); United States v. Maricopa, County of , CV-12-00981

PHX-ROS, 2015 WL 9266969, at *16 (D. Ariz. June 15, 2015) (“Maricopa County is

directly liable for violations resulting from its official policy, which includes policy

promulgated by Arpaio.”); see also Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 224 Ariz. 481, 232 P.3d

1263, 1269 (App. 2010) (holding that MCSO is a non-jural entity). Furthermore, the

existence of the County’s insurance or self-insurance does not control the legal issue of

whether the County is the true defendant here; neither does it divest the County of it

underlying liability for the Sheriff’s and MCSO’s actions.

II. PROPOSED REMEDIES RELATED TO MCSO’S INTERNAL AFFAIRSINVESTIGATIONS AND DISCIPLINE (COUNTS 2/3).

A. Chief Deputy Sheridan will accept the previous policy violationfindings.

The Chief Deputy will accept the original policy violation findings o

Donald Vogel that Chief Michael Olson previously sustained (but then overturned

following Chief Sheridan’s name clearing hearing), as outlined in the Court’s Findings o

Fact at paragraph 435. Chief Deputy Sheridan will accept discipline for these finding

pursuant to MCSO’s disciplinary matrix.

B. The Court’s invalidation of previous IA investigations, disciplinarydecisions, and/or grievance decisions.

The Court’s Findings of Fact found the following disciplinary and/o

grievance decisions to be insufficient, invalid or void, and suggested that new

investigations and/or discipline for some or all of these subjects should occur:

Vogel Investigation – IA 2014-543. [Doc. 1677 at ¶¶405-423; 424-490].



7/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/167

Olson Investigation – IA 2014-542. [ Id. at ¶¶ 405-423;491-573]

Cisco Perez Investigation – IA 2014-295. [ Id. at ¶¶603-692]

Cisco Perez Follow Up Investigation - IA 2015-541.[ Id. at ¶¶ 693-717]

IA 2015-018. [ Id. at ¶¶ 738-747]

IA 2014-021. [ Id. at ¶¶ 748-751]

IA 2015-022. [ Id. at ¶¶ 752-764]

Mackiewicz investigation.2 [ Id. at ¶¶ 766-825]

The Court also suggested that additional investigations should be conducted into new o

previously uninvestigated violations or alleged violations. [ Id. at ¶ 904].3 The Sheriff and

the Chief Deputy struggle to provide the Court with a remedy related to the Court’

invalidation of previous IA investigations because of concerns that opening investigation

that have already been completed might violate Arizona state law.4 However, they are

2

Defendants question the relevance of the Mackiewicz investigation to the interesof the Plaintiff class and the injunctive relief ordered by this Court.

3Defendants would like to raise an issue with the Court about its Findings of Fact

Defendants wish the Court’s injunctive relief to be constitutionally valid. As such, to the

extent the Court orders injunctive relief tied to the subjects contained in its Findings oFact, such relief must be limited to the constitutional violations it has found in this caseand the interests of the Plaintiff class. See Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1267 (9thCir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom. Maricopa County, Ariz. v. Melendres, 136 S. Ct. 799(2016) (finding injunctive relief that “broadly requires the Monitor to consider the‘disciplinary outcomes for any violations of departmental policy’ and to assess whetherDeputies are subject to ‘civil suits or criminal charges ... for off-duty conduct’ was nonarrowly tailored to addressing the relevant violations of federal law at issue in thiaction”). Paragraph 904 of the Court’s Findings of Fact, among others, appears to sugges broad remedies that may or may not be narrowly tailored to the interest of the Plaintifclass.

4Defendants would like to bring to the Court’s attention their concerns about the

Arizona Police Officer’s Bill of Rights. See A.R.S. §§ 38-1101-1115. This statutoryscheme, in part, ensures that officers receive adequate notice of an internal investigation(A.R.S. § 38-1104(A)), “just cause” for termination (A.R.S. § 1101(7), a requirement thaan IA investigation is conducted within 180 days (A.R.S. § 38-1110), and specifiappellate rights from a disciplinary decision (A.R.S. §§ 38-1106, -1107).

Defendants are unsure whether invalidating previous IA investigations, disciplinarydecisions, and/or grievance decisions by MCSO and instituting new ones in their placewould violate the timeliness provisions of A.R.S. § 38-1110(C). Id. (“Failure to conducan investigation within one hundred eighty calendar days may result in the appeal boarddismissing any discipline ordered if it is determined that the employer did not make a



8/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/168

committed to working with the Court and Plaintiffs to satisfactorily resolve their concern

so the identified investigations may be addressed to the Court’s satisfaction.

C. Defendants’ proposed reorganization of IA investigations and finadecision making authority over MCSO discipline. [¶¶ 903-907].

To address the Court’s concerns regarding the integrity of the Professiona

Standards Bureau (“PSB”), Sheriff Arpaio and the Chief Deputy are committed to

ensuring the following re-organization of IA investigations at MCSO:

All PSB investigators have been IA certified, interviewtrained, and detective certified. All Complaints will be provided directly to PSB, who will then assign aninvestigator.

Upon completion of the investigation of sworn deputies

and the identified civilian counterparts, the investigationwill be presented to the Captain over PSB, currentlyCaptain Molina, for findings.

Upon completion of the findings, the packet will be sent toCompliance to complete their quality control check. Ifthere is an identifiable issue that needs PSB attention, the packet will be resubmitted to PSB.

Once approval from Compliance is completed, the packetwill then be presented to the Appointed Authority, whichwill be Chief Holmes.

The Chief Deputy will no longer be involved in the

good faith effort to complete the investigation within one hundred eighty calendar daysA.R.S. § 38-1110(C).”). Likewise, the new investigations outlined in ¶ 904 might runagainst the 180-day deadline to initiate an investigation of misconduct to the extenMCSO was put on notice that an investigation should occur. See also A.R.S. § 381104(A).

Finally, Defendants are unsure whether this Court can invalidate discipline that waimposed on an individual where an appeal was taken, and a final decision was rendered byan Arizona court. See In re Gruntz , 202 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Thus, ifollows that federal district courts have no authority to review the final determinations of a

state court in judicial proceedings.”) (citation omitted); Dubinka v. Judges of SuperiorCourt of State of Cal. for County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994(“Federal district courts … may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state courdecisions.”); Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 47 (1986) (federal bankruptcy courts shouldnot invalidate the results of state criminal proceedings); see also Rooker v. Fidelity TrusCo., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (federal statutory jurisdiction over direct appeals from statecourts lies exclusively in the Supreme Court and is beyond the original jurisdiction ofederal courts); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983(the Rooker jurisdictional bar extends to particular claims that are “inextricablyintertwined” with those a state court has already decided).



9/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/169

preliminary findings or the final findings.

The PSB packet with be reviewed by the AppointedAuthority regardless of whether PSB makes a sustained ornon-sustained finding.

Regarding district investigations, the assigned districtinvestigator will perform the investigation. Oncecompleted, PSB will perform the quality control of alldistrict investigations. Additional sworn personnel have been added to PSB to assist with the increased caseloadand quality control with district cases. If the districtinvestigation is not satisfactory, it will be returned to thedistrict for completion.

Further, under previous policies, only the Chief Deputycould initiate a truthfulness investigation/findings. Thisexclusive authority is eliminated. A truthfulnessinvestigation/findings can be initiated by PSB.

As a final step to the re-organization, a detention Captainand Lieutenant will be added to PSB to deal exclusivelywith complaints involving detention officers and theiridentified civilian counter-parts.

To accomplish this re-organization, the following policieswill be updated: CP-8, CP-3, CP-5 and GH-2.

In the event an internal investigation relates to the interests of the Plaintif

class pursuant to paragraphs 905-906 of the Court’s Findings of Fact or if the principal o

the internal investigation is ranked above the appropriate MCSO decision maker, SherifArpaio suggests the following additional steps:

The appropriate MCSO decision maker will forwardhis/her determination to an official in an outside agency orqualified individual for an independent review and finaldetermination of discipline. However, termination of anyMCSO personnel will remain the soul province of theSheriff or his MCSO designee.

The outside official’s final determination and anyassociated discipline will be reported to the Monitor and

the Court.

This will occur regardless of whether the IA investigationis sustained or not-sustained.

Finally, pursuant to paragraph 907 of the Court’s Findings of Fact, Sheriff

Arpaio proposes that all investigative and disciplinary authority should be returned to

Sheriff Arpaio and/or his designee after the Court finds MCSO in full compliance with the



10/31


11/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/1611

final sustained discipline, and specification of the extent of grievance authority. [ Id. at ¶

896]. Finally, Sheriff Arpaio agrees with the promulgation of grievance policies designed

to address conflicts of interest and the ability of PSB to address evidence first presented

by a principal at a name-clearing hearing. [ Id. at ¶ 898].

As per the Court’s suggestion, Sheriff Arpaio looks forward to receiving

Plaintiffs’ expert’s suggestions regarding what specific training and policy changes are

required in light of the deficiencies discussed in the Court’s Order. [ Id. at ¶ 900]. Sherif

Arpaio looks forward to discussing these training and policy issues with Plaintiffs, and

plans to avoid further litigation on these issues.

V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S

32, 45 (1991), a court may assess attorneys' fees as a sanction for the “‘willfu

disobedience of a court order.’” Id. at 258 (quoting Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier

Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 71 (1967)). Should the Court order attorneys’ fees to

Plaintiffs, Defendants reserve the right to challenge the reasonableness of the amount o

fees and costs Plaintiffs request.

VI. CONCLUSION.

Defendants have earnestly attempted to provide the Court with remedia

measures that fully address the Court’s findings and concerns, so that this matter can b

concluded. However, Defendants reiterate that, in the event the Court does not find

Defendants’ suggested remedies to be sufficient to fully address the issues identified in it

Findings of Fact, they ask that the Court grant Defendants the opportunity to develop

additional remedies that address the Court’s concerns.6

6While Defendants are committed to doing everything in their power to assist the

Court and Plaintiffs in resolving this case to everyone’s satisfaction, they do, howeverobject to the Court’s Order precluding them from challenging the Court’s Findings oFact. [Doc. 1680]. Defendants are well aware of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(5) (“A party maylater question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the findings, whether or not the party requested findings, objected to them, moved to amend them, or moved for partiafindings.”). However, because Defendants do not know what the final outcome of thicase will be, and do not know whether the final outcome will require a previous challenge



12/31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

284986434.1

5/27/1612

DATED this 27th day of May, 2016.

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

By /s/John T. MastersonJohn T. MastersonJoseph J. PopolizioJustin M. Ackerman40 North Central Avenue, Suite 2700Phoenix, Arizona 85004Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaioand the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 27th day of May, 2016, I caused the foregoing

document to be filed electronically with the Clerk of Court through the CM/ECF System

for filing; and served on counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/Karen Gawel

to the findings, Defendants believe that due process entitles them to the opportunity andtime to raise all such challenges now, as might be necessary to preserve any appellaterights they might later need to assert.



13/31

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1687-1 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 19


14/31

1

Red – Plaintiffs’ Proposal, Defendants Do Not AgreeBlue – Defendants’ Proposal, Plaintiffs Do Not Agree

May 26, 2016

Draft Combined Proposal for Notice and Compensation Methodology

I. Third-Party, Neutral Claims Administrator

A. The Court will designate the firm of BrownGreer to serve as a neutral,third-party administrator to manage the Notice and Claims ProcessingPlan to compensate individuals who suffered injury as a result of anyviolations by the MCSO of the Court’s December 23, 2011 Preliminary

Injunction Order.

B. BrownGreer’s fees will be paid by Defendants.

II. Eligibility

A. Participation in this scheme for victim compensation is voluntary and isintended as an alternative for eligible individuals to any other meansavailable for obtaining relief for injuries resulting from alleged violationsof the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. Claimants who submit claims andare determined to be eligible to participate in the plan will waive andextinguish any right they might otherwise have to obtain relief for thesame conduct through any other avenue. The rights of any individual whodoes not participate in the compensation plan will not be affected.

B. Individuals who have submitted a claim regarding the same conduct inanother forum and received a determination, or those who have a pendingclaim in another forum, are not eligible to participate in this program. Ifthe individual has a pending claim in another forum, he or she mustwithdraw such a claim in order to participate in this alternativecompensation scheme. As with all other individuals who choose to seekremedies through this compensation scheme, those who withdraw a claim pending in another forum in order to submit an application under thisscheme will be required to waive and extinguish any right they mightotherwise have to obtain relief for the same conduct through any otheravenue.

C. Compensation under this program will be available to those asserting thattheir constitutional rights were violated as a result of detention by MCSO



15/31

Tab 5

2

in violation of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction from December 23,2011 to the present May 24, 2013.

D. Individuals detained in violation of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction will be eligible for compensation, whether detained during traffic stops or

otherwise. Eligibility for remedies under this scheme should be limited tothose who can show they were detained in violation of the Court’sPreliminary Injunction in the context of a traffic stop.

III. Compensation Fund

The Board of Supervisors will create a fund of $500,000 for payment of claimsadjudicated in favor of claimants. In the event that amount is exhausted through the payment of claims and is insufficient to provide compensation to all successful claimants,additional claims adjudicated in favor of claimants will be honored and timely paid by theCounty through further allocations if necessary. If all claims adjudicated in favor of

claimants are fully paid out and there remains an unspent sum in the originally or anysupplementally allocated funds, such amount would revert to the County.

IV. Notice Plan

A. BrownGreer would be provided with a budget of $200,000 $100,000 tospend on notice and outreach to potentially eligible individuals about theavailability of compensation. BrownGreer will utilize its expertise todetermine how monies allocated for notice can most effectively beemployed to maximize the likelihood that potential claimants will bereached.

A.

The notice plan may include use of radio, digital/online and printadvertising, earned media placements, and partnership with non-governmental organizations and embassies. It should target individuals inat least Maricopa County, along the U.S./Mexico Border and in Mexico. Notice will be provided in English and Spanish, with a heavy focus onSpanish-language media and sites.

B. BrownGreer will consult with the Parties in the development of the notice plan and the text of any notices, press releases or scripts developed. Thecost for any such services will be paid out of the notice budget providedfor in IV.A. above.

C. BrownGreer will develop a claim website for the case, a toll-free phonenumber and an email account, to provide information about how to make aclaim. The cost for any such services will be paid out of the notice budget provided for in IV.A. above.

D. Individual notice will be provided to any individuals identified by theParties as potentially eligible for compensation for whom a current address



16/31

Tab 5

3

can be found, i.e., through commercially available database services, andother methods. All costs for such services will be paid out of the notice budget provided for in IV.A above.

V. Claims Adjudication Plan

A.

Claims must be initiated within 365 days from the first issuance of program notice by Brown Greer through any public media outlet (whichwill also be the date when Brown Greer will be ready to begin receivingapplications).

B. BrownGreer will be provided a sum of $75,000 in start-up fees toimplement the claims processing program.

C. All materials must be available in English and Spanish, and any otherlanguages as needed. Language should be calculated to be understandableto individuals who will be making claims.

D. In all cases, it is claimant’s burden to establish their entitlement tocompensation by a preponderance of the evidence. BrownGreer will beresponsible for evaluating the credibility and competency of evidence andwitnesses, and determining the appropriate weight to be assigned toevidence adduced.

E. The Parties recognize that available documentation and testimony mayalready establish a case that some individuals were subject to violations ofthe Preliminary Injunction. Thus, a multi-step and multi-track system is proposed to ensure that the burden on claimants for whom such

uncontested evidence exists is reduced and the resources committed to this program are used efficiently.

F. Claim Initiation Form. Claimants will first be required to complete aclaim initiation form. This form would ask for the following basicinformation:

1. Contact information: current address and phone number whereindividual can be reached

2. Identity information: name, name provided to MCSO (if different),DOB and reliable proof of identity

3. Details of encounter: date in the applicable time period (orapproximate (i.e., 30 days) a five-day date range if precise date isunknown), type of encounter (traffic stop, other)

4. Approximate length of detention by MCSO. (In cases involvingtransfer to ICE/CBP, claimant to provide length of detention upuntil release to ICE/CBP custody)



17/31

Tab 5

4

5. Whether claimant will request compensation for additional harmslisted in Section V.J.5.a below (using check boxes)

6. The form will be signed under oath. Claimants will also sign anacknowledgement and agreement that participation in this program, extinguishes all other rights they may have to pursueclaims based upon the same conduct by MCSO.

7. The form will provide claimants with notice as to theirconfidentiality rights under the program, including any exceptionsto confidentiality, e.g., what and with whom information may beshared and for what purpose.

8.

The form will also state that claimants are responsible for any taxreporting responsibilities that arise out of receiving compensationthrough this mechanism.

G.

Track Determination. Within 21 days after a Claim Initiation Form isfiled, BrownGreer will make a determination as to whether the claimantmeets the eligibility requirements for participation in the program and, ifso, what Track (A or B) his or her claim will fall under. BrownGreer willsend any claimants determined not to be eligible for the program a Noticeof Ineligibility, and a follow-up form to eligible claimants and informationas appropriate.

1. Counsel for the Parties will agree in advance on the list of prequalified candidates and provide these names and relatedinformation to BrownGreer.

2. If BrownGreer determines, based on the information in the claiminitiation form, that the person is not eligible to participate in the program, e.g., because s/he was detained outside the eligible periodor the conduct complained of is outside the scope of this case, thenBrownGreer will inform the individual in writing that no rights thatthe individual may have to pursue relief through other avenues has been extinguished.

H. Track A. These individuals are “prequalified” to receive compensationand will be awarded the minimum amount as set forth in Section VI.A,unless they are requesting compensation for additional harms. Theinformation provided in the Claim Initiation Form will be deemed to havemet those claimants’ burden, except as to any claim for any harms otherthan for the detention itself. Individuals whose claims would otherwise beassigned to Track A, but who are seeking compensation for any suchadditional harms shall be assigned to Track B.

1. Prequalified claimants include any person identified in HSUspreadsheets as having been detained in the context of a traffic



18/31

Tab 5

5

stop, not arrested on suspicion of conduct in violation of criminallaw, and transferred to ICE/CBP in the applicable time period, aswell as any other individuals that counsel for Parties can agreeappear to have been subject to violations of the PreliminaryInjunction based on available documentation, including MCSO

incident reports, CAD data and records from the U.S. Departmentof Homeland Security (DHS).

2.

BrownGreer will process claims for only those prequalifiedclaimants who complete and submit a Claim Initiation Form.

3. BrownGreer will be provided an amount yet to be determined perclaim for processing claims in Track A.

I. Track B. All individuals who do not fit into Track A will be placed inTrack B. BrownGreer will send them follow-up claim forms andinformation necessary to gather the information in Section III.J below.

1. Claimants will be provided with contact information for Plaintiffs’counsel and 30 days to complete forms and submit supportingdocumentation.

2. BrownGreer will be provided an amount yet to be determined perclaim for processing claims in Track B.

J. Burden of Proof for Individuals in Track B.

1. BrownGreer must be persuaded that a claimant has shown an

entitlement to some portion or all of the compensation claimedwith credible and competent evidence, including that s/he wasdetained in violation of the Preliminary Injunction, the length ofthe detention, and the fact, nature, and extent of any additionalcompensable injury. A claimant’s statement, made under oath,shall be considered admissible evidence.

2. Establishing a prima facie case of a preliminary injunctionviolation. In order to establish eligibility for compensation becausethe claimant was detained in violation of the PreliminaryInjunction in the relevant date range and shift the burden to theMCSO to rebut the claimant’s prima facie case, the claimant must provide the following information under oath:

a. Identity information: name, name provided to MCSO (ifdifferent), DOB and reliable proof of identity

b. Details of encounter: date (or an approximate (i.e., 30 days) afive-day date range if precise date is unknown), type ofencounter (traffic stop, other)



19/31

Tab 5

6

c. Approximate location of encounter with officer(s) (e.g.,Highway 89, approximately 3 miles north of Fountain Hills)

d. Reason given by MCSO officer(s) for detention (if any)

e. Evidence that MCSO suspected unlawful presence, e.g.,questioning about immigration status, ICE/CBP inquiry orturned over to ICE/CBP, including details about whathappened, e.g., if ICE/CBP came to site of detention or MCSOtransferred claimant to ICE/CBP

f. Approximate length of detention by MCSO (in cases involvingtransfer to ICE/CBP, claimant to provide length of detention upuntil release to ICE/CBP custody)

g. Whether claimant was arrested

h.

Testimony or other evidence that the detaining agency s/heencountered was MCSO, e.g., presence of an MCSO marked patrol vehicle, description of the uniform officer was wearing,etc.

3. Additional buttressing information for Track B claimants (helpful, not required, but may be considered in weighing PFCelements to determine whether the required elements have beenestablished)

a. Name/badge number of MCSO officer(s) initiating encounter

b.

Physical description of MCSO officer(s) present at theencounter

c. If encounter was initiated as a traffic stop, the name of thedriver and/or owner of the vehicle stopped, license platenumber of vehicle stopped, and/or description of vehicle (e.g., blue 1999 Chevrolet van)

d. Any documentation pertaining to encounter with MCSOofficers and / or the claimant’s detention

e.

Identification documentation that was provided to MCSO at thetime of the encounter, if it still exists

f. Sworn statements of witnesses to the events described byclaimant

4. If a claim form is returned to BrownGreer and appears incomplete,BrownGreer will return the form to the claimant with instructions



20/31

Tab 5

7

to correct the deficiency and return the form in 30 days. If theform remains incomplete at that point, BrownGreer will evaluate it“as is.”

5.

MCSO’s Burden to Rebut PFC for Track B Claimants

a.

If claimant meets the PFC threshold, MCSO must comeforward with credible, competent evidence that casts doubt onone or more elements of the claim within 30 120 days ofreceiving access to a complete file from BrownGreer. ShouldMCSO require additional time, they may make an application toBrownGreer to have an additional 90 days (up to 120 days total),which BrownGreer will grant provided it is for a reasonable reason(i.e., high volume of claims).

b. Examples of evidence that can satisfy MCSO’s burden to comeforward with rebuttal evidence include:

i. Attestation that MCSO has no record of the encounteralleged by claimant in cases where the MCSO wouldotherwise have such records

ii. Testimonial or other evidence that encounter alleged byclaimant did not occur

iii. Documentation showing that claimant’s encounter withMCSO officers was, in some significant way, other than asrepresented by claimant.

iv. Testimonial or other evidence that the length of detentionwas not as represented by claimant

c. In any cases where MCSO opts to rebut a case, notice and acopy of what MCSO submits will be provided to the claimantif he or she is not represented by counsel, or any counsel whohas entered an appearance and is representing the claimant withrespect to his or her claim. Claimants and, where applicable,his or her counsel will have 30 120 days to respond , but mayrequest an extension of 90 days, for a total of 120 days ifBrownGreer deems the request reasonable.

6. Establishing eligibility for compensation for additional injury

a. BrownGreer will consider evidence of the following additionalinjuries in determining the final award amount (from Plaintiffs’last proposal):



21/31

Tab 5

8

i. Damages arising out of physical harm and/or severeemotional distress that was proximately caused by thedetention (up to a cumulative limit for all such damagesfor emotional distress of $7,500), including, but notlimited to –

(a)

Ongoing physical harm that occurred as a resultof detention and pain and suffering, if any,arising directly out of the physical injurysustained by the claimant

(b) Medical bills paid or other out of pocket coststhat arose as a result of physical/emotional harmcaused by detention

(c) Severe emotional distress that occurred as aresult of detention and associated costs, if the

claimant can establish by credible andcompetent evidence physical manifestation andthe need for treatment (i.e., claimant sufferedshock or mental anguish manifested by a physical injury)

ii. Lost Property - value of property confiscated and expensesincurred as a result of the confiscation and in trying to getit back (up to a cumulative limit for all such losses of$5,000)

1.

Car impounded - loss of time / money in getting car back

2. Money taken

3. Credit / debit cards taken

4. Identification taken - loss of time / money in gettinglegitimate and lawful identification returned orreplaced (not including driver’s licenses seized because suspended)

5.

Other items

iii. Detention (and length of detention) by ICE/CBP that was proximately caused by MCSO ($500 for first hour, or any portion thereof, of detention after first 20 minutes; plus$35 for each additional segment of 20 minutes, or any portion thereof, up to a maximum cumulative total of$2,915)



22/31

Tab 5

9

iv. Lost wages, foregone employment opportunities or loss of job (with recovery limited to the lesser of 30 days ofdocumented lost wages or $7,500)

1. Dollar amount of wages lost (up to 30-day/$7,500limit) as a result of being detained (must besupported by pertinent documentation, e.g., paystubs from pre-detention employment)

2. Other costs associated with lost job, e.g., days spenttrying to find new job for which claimant can showhe or she was legally eligible ($200/day up to amaximum of $1,000)

v. Other provable harms (up to a cumulative maximum of$2,500)

1.

E.g., if claimant personally incurred and paid legalfees, or lost housing / had to find other houses as aresult of detention and associated expenses

(c)

The absence of documentation of out of pocket costs will notautomatically disqualify an individual from receivingcompensation for that injury if there is a reasonableexplanation for the absence and alternative corroboratingevidence, such as affidavits from individuals with direct personal knowledge about the relevant issue (such as treatingmedical providers) other than the claimant.

(d) A Social Security number (or other government identificationnumber) will be requested of all claimants to process a claimfor compensation to permit BrownGreer to ensure claimintegrity. Claim forms shall state prominently that a SocialSecurity number is not required in order to receivecompensation; however, if a person who has a Social Security Number or Resident Alien Number is requesting compensationfor out of pocket medical expenses, that number must bereported to receive that part of the compensation claim. Government identification numbers will be excised from all

documents provided to the parties, except in cases where theindividual is claiming compensation for out of pocket medicalexpenses. In such a case, a government identification numberwill be provided.

(e) BrownGreer will be responsible for determining whether anytax documentation is required to be issued in conjunction with paying out claims, and be responsible for issuing such



23/31

Tab 5

10

document that may be necessary for Maricopa County as the payor (i.e., 1099s, W2s).

7. Interviewing Track B claimants and other witnesses

a. Either claimant or MCSO may demand the right to haveBrownGreer question witnesses in any case in which thecredibility and/or bias of one or more witnesses may be inissue. The party requesting such an interview shall be requiredto provide compensation for the BG staff member conductingthe interview at the rate of $___/ hour for the time spent in theinterview and for up to two (s) hours of preparation time.Either party may, but is not required to, submit questions to beasked of the witness(es) in such interviews. Both parties andPlaintiffs’ class counsel may be present at such interviews.Claimant will be given notice if he or she or their witness are to be interviewed, and may be represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel

or their own representative. For witnesses not in MaricopaCounty, efforts will be made to accommodate their interview,such as interviews by Skype or other video conferencetechnology.

b. Interviews will be limited to 30 minutes, and both parties maysubmit questions to BrownGreer to ask, although BrownGreerhas the authority to ask additional questions to enable them todetermine the veracity of the claims.

VI. Minimum Compensation for Detention

A. Claimants will be awarded a base amount of $1500 $500 for detentionlasting up to one hour , if the individual is detained past 20 minutes.Claimants will be awarded an additional base amount of $1000 $35 foreach additional 20 minute segment of detention thereafter (or any portionthereof), up to a cumulative maximum for any detention of $2915.

B. These base amounts are in addition to any compensation that BrownGreermay award for additional injury under Section V.J.5.a.

VII. No Appeal. Any party will have the ability to request reconsideration ofBrownGreer’s decision by BrownGreer, but otherwise have no right of appeal.

VIII. Award Disbursement. Defendants will set up an account to which BrownGreerwould have access for the purpose of paying out claims adjudicated in favor ofclaimants, with at least monthly accounting to the County showing alldisbursements made.

IX. Confidentiality. A protective order will be sought to maintain the confidentialityof personal and/or private information of claimants and other individuals



24/31


25/31


26/31



27/31



28/31



29/31

EXHIBIT C



30/31



31/31


Attorneys for Arpaio Remedies

Documents

Transcript of Attorneys for Arpaio Remedies