Melendres v Arpaio #1331 MCSO Notice of Filing of Fifth Quarterly Report

8/20/2019 Melendres v Arpaio #1331 MCSO Notice of Filing of Fifth Quarterly Report

1/35

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES649 North Second AvenuePhoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 234-9775

Michele M. Iafrate, #015115

[email protected]

JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC2901 North Central Avenue, Ste. 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012(602) 263-1700

John T. Masterson, #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, #017434Diana J. Elston, #025461Justin M. Ackerman, #030726

[email protected]

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio andMaricopa County Sheriff’s Office

IN THE 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. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS

DEFENDANTS JOSEPH M.ARPAIO AND MARICOPACOUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE’SNOTICE OF FILING FIFTHQUARTERLY COMPLIANCEREPORT

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1331 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 2

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/35

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Pursuant to the Court’s October 2, 2013 Order (Doc. 606), Defendants

Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“Defendants”) file with

the Court Defendants’ Fifth Quarterly Compliance Report. (Attached as Exhibit 1).

DATED this 11th

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

day of September, 2015

By:Michele M. Iafrate

s/Michele M. Iafrate

Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.

Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff’sOffice

JONES SKELTON & HOCHULI, PLC

By:John T. Masterson

s/John T. Masterson (w/permission)

Joseph J. Popolizio

Diana J. ElstonJustin M. Ackerman Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M.Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff’sOffice

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court on

September 11, 2015, for filing and uploading to the CM/ECF system which will send

notification of such filing to all parties of record.

By: s/Jill Lafornara

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1331 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2


3/35

EXHIBIT 1

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1331-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 33


4/35

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff

COURT IMPLEMENTATION DIVISION

FIFTH QUARTERLY COMPLIANCE REPORT

2ND QUARTER 2015, APRIL 1 – JUNE 30

MELC730589



5/35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………. ii

PART I: Background and Overview of MCSO’s Major Efforts Toward Compliance…… 1

PART II: Steps Taken By MCSO and Plans to Achieve Full and Effective Compliance…. 3

Section III - Implementation Division & Internal Agency-Wide Assessment…….. 3

Section IV - Monitor Review Process……………………………………………... 9

Section V - Policies and Procedures……………………………………………….. 9

Section VI - Pre-Planned Operations ……………………………………………… 12

Section VII - Training……………………………………………………………… 12

Section VIII - Traffic Stop Documentation and Data Collection and Review…….. 13

Section IX - Early Identification System (EIS)……………………………………. 16

Section X - Supervision and Evaluations of Officer Performance………………… 17

Section XI - Misconduct and Complaints………………………………………….. 18

Section XII - Community Engagement……………………………………………..18

PART III: Response to Concerns Raised in Monitor’s Previous Quarterly Report………..20

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………….. 20

Appendices

A. MCSO Melendres Court Order Compliance Chart………………………………… 21

B. List of MCSO Acronyms…………………………………………………………... 26

C. List of Tables………………………………………………………………………. 27

i

MELC730590



6/35

INTRODUCTION

This Quarterly Report assesses the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) level of

Compliance with Judge Snow’s Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (Doc. 606)

of October 2, 2013; as amended the “Court Order”. The reporting period for this report coversthe second quarter of 2015 (April 1, 2015 - June 30, 2015). This Quarterly Report is submitted

to comply with the Court’s Order, paragraph 11.

The Court Order, paragraph 11 requires that MCSO file with the Court, no later than 30 days before the Monitor’s quarterly report is due, a report that shall:

(i) delineate the steps taken by MCSO during the reporting period to implement thisOrder;

(ii) delineate MCSO’s plans to correct any problems; and

(iii)

include responses to any concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous quarterly report.

PurposeMCSO intends to achieve “Full and Effective Compliance” as the Court’s Order defines it. The

purpose of this Quarterly Report is to describe and document the steps MCSO has taken toimplement the Court’s Order and explain MCSO’s plans to correct any problems. Lastly, this

Quarterly Report includes responses to concerns raised in the Monitor’s previous Quarterly

Report submitted on June 14, 2015.

ii

MELC730591



7/35

PART I:BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF MCSO’S EFFORTS TOWARD COMPLIANCE

Background

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Doc. 579) of May 24, 2013 and the subsequentSupplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order (Doc. 606) of October 2, 2013,

permanently enjoined the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) from engaging in seven

distinct areas of enforcement activity involving investigation, detention, or arrest of vehicle

occupants based in part or whole on a person’s race, Latino ancestry, or possible unauthorized presence within the country. While the Court recognizes an exception when deputies are acting

based on a specific suspect description, MCSO must ensure it only engages in race-neutral and

bias-free policing.

To ensure compliance with the Court’s Orders, MCSO established a skilled Court

Implementation Division (CID), established policies, procedures, and directives, and created the

Bureau of Internal Oversight (BIO) that conducts internal inspections and audits to further ensurecompliance measures are met.

MCSO acquired and implemented hardware and software technology that is used to collecttraffic stop data and data needed for the Early Identification System (EIS). This technology,

along with inspections and audits performed by the BIO helps MCSO conduct quality assurance

activities.

MCSO promulgated all Office Policies and Procedures related to Patrol Operations and

completed the comprehensive instruction required in each of these substantive areas. MCSO alsoincreased the number and activities of supervisors.

All MCSO employees have read and acknowledged the Court’s Corrective Statement of April17, 2014, and all supervisors have read and acknowledged the Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law (Doc. 579) of May 24, 2013 and the Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order

(Doc. 606). In March 2015, the Court deemed MCSO in compliance, having met the

requirements of the Court Order, and no longer obligated to report on compliance levels for theCourt’s Corrective Statement of April 17, 2014.

Overview of MCSO’s Efforts Toward Compliance The Melendres Court Order Compliance Chart (See Appendix A) was developed from

information provided in the Monitor’s Fourth Quarterly Report (covering the reporting period ofJanuary 1 – March 31, 2015) and then updated to reflect the continued progress MCSO has made

toward compliance during the current reporting period of April 1 – June 30, 2015 (2nd

Quarter of

2015). According to the Monitor’s Fourth Quarterly Report, the Monitor will evaluate MCSO on

89 paragraphs for compliance. The Monitor will assess these paragraphs in two phases. Phase 1compliance is assessed based on “whether requisite policies and procedures have been developed

and approved and agency personnel have received documented training on their content”

(Monitor’s Third Quarterly Report, p. 6). Phase 2 compliance is “generally considered

1

MELC730592



8/35

operational implementation” and must comply “more than 94% of the time or in more than 94%

of the instances being reviewed” (Monitor’s Third Quarterly Report, p. 6).

According to the Monitor’s Fourth Quarterly Report, MCSO is in compliance with 31 of the 77

paragraphs assessed for Phase 1 compliance and with 22 of the 89 paragraphs assessed for Phase

2 Compliance (twelve paragraphs are not applicable to Phase 1 compliance as they do not requirea corresponding policy or procedure).

2

MELC730593



9/35

PART II: STEPS TAKEN BY MCSO AND PLANS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCEWITH THE ORDER

Sections I and II of the Court Order focus on definitions, effective dates, and jurisdictional

matters, for this reason, Part II of this report will begin with Section III of the Court Order.

Section III – MCSO Implementation Division and Internal Agency-Wide Assessment

MCSO has taken major steps to implement Section III of the Court Order: In October 2013,

MCSO formed a division titled the Court Compliance and Implementation Division consistent

with paragraph 9. In February 2015, MCSO changed the name to the Court ImplementationDivision (CID). Captain Russ Skinner, who assumed command in July 2014, heads this division

comprised of eleven members with interdisciplinary backgrounds. The division members

include one lieutenant, four sergeants, two deputies, and one management analyst. One

administrative assistant position is assigned to the division, however during this reporting period,the position was vacated. CID is in the process of recruiting for the position and it is expected to

be filled during the next quarter. Captain Skinner has been appointed the single point of contact

with the Court and the Monitor; he coordinates visits and other activities with each of the partiesas the Court Order requires. In order to ensure that MCSO fully and effectively implements the

Court Order throughout the Office, this division continues to report directly to the Chief Deputy

who has agency-wide authority to demand full compliance.

As part of the CID’s duties to coordinate MCSO’s compliance and implementation activities, the

division took the following steps:

A. Amendment/Creation of New Policies and Procedures In response to paragraph 19 of the Court Order concerning review of existing Policy andProcedures, and paragraph 30 regarding timely submissions, the CID, working with the Human

Resource Bureau’s Compliance Division, Policy Section, continues to review MCSO Policies

and Procedures (see Section V). In addition, MCSO issued three Briefing Boards to ensure

prompt compliance with new or amended policy (see Table #4). No Administrative Broadcastswere issued.

The CID published its Operations Manual during this reporting period. It was approved anddistributed to personnel assigned within the unit.

B. Document Production The CID is responsible for facilitating data collection and document production. The CID

responded to seven document requests (see Table #1). Additional document production is

underway as part of the CID’s efforts to assist the Monitor’s quarterly review.

The collection and review of the produced documents allow quality control and increased

accountability among enforcement commands. In addition, the CID continues to work toward

systematizing data collection and improving audit/quality assurance capabilities for a more

3

MELC730594



10/35

effective response to the wide variety of record requests. The CID also worked with the Monitor

Team to align the type of documentation MCSO generated to verify required compliance

measures of the Court Order.

Table #1

Document Production Requests

Title General Description

April Monthly Request Monthly Production Request

04-04-15

Quarterly RequestDocument Request for the time period January 1 – March 31, 2015

May Monthly Request Monthly Production Request

05-07-15

ITR Request

Investigative Team Request

05-19-15

Site Visit RequestAdditional Request for documentation following the April 2015 Site Visit

June Monthly Request Monthly Production Request

06-22-15

4QP11

Additional request for documentation related to MCSO’s Fourth Quarterly

Compliance Report

C. Maintenance of RecordsThe CID is responsible for record maintenance as the Court ordered. The CID continues to

expand its record keeping capacity and develop systems to increase efficiency in providingaccess; and adopted the following procedure to ensure compliance:

• CID electronically catalogues all documents and Office Policies and Procedures related

to the Court Order.

• CID collects all production requests pursuant to the Court Order and maintains records of

the documents forwarded to the Monitor.

D. Assist in Providing Inspections/Quality Assurance/AuditsThe Bureau of Internal Oversight (BIO) continues to develop and expand audits and inspectionsto provide quality assurance throughout the Office. MCSO created the BIO on September 29,

2014 to address Court Order compliance, inspections, and employee performance and

misconduct. The BIO conducts audits based on General Accepted Government AuditingStandards (GAGAS). In addition to monitoring and ensuring compliance with the Court Order,

some of the procedures performed by the auditors include: review programs; evaluate

compliance with rules, regulations, policies and procedures; appraise the quality of

performances; and evaluate safeguards in place to limit losses of all kinds in regards todepartment resources.

4

MELC730595



11/35

The BIO is also structured for future expansion to conduct oversight, quality assurance,

inspections, and audits of jail operations and use of force by enforcement and detention

personnel. During this rating period, the BIO increased its staff with the addition of anadministrative assistant and is in the process of hiring a Senior Auditor and Management

Analyst.

During this reporting period, the Monitor approved MCSO Policy GH-4, Bureau of Internal

Oversight . MCSO published this policy on May 28, 2015.

Consistent with the Court Order’s mandate to engage in periodic audits/inspections, the BIOconducted thirty-seven inspections in thirteen areas between April 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015.

These included three CAD and Alpha Paging inspections; three administrative investigation

inspections; one patrol incident report inspection; three patrol shift roster inspections; threecounty attorney disposition inspections; three employee email inspections; six supervisory note

inspections; three district/division operations inspections; four cash inspections; and one P-card

inspection. Of the 37 inspections, three were traffic-stop-related (see Section VIII).

Inspectors reviewed these functions for compliance to existing Sheriff’s Office Policy and the

Court Order. An ongoing and consistent analysis of all inspection results, to include

comparisons between staff members from all districts and divisions, will be instrumental inidentifying the progress of various Sheriff’s Office components through compliance to

established procedures. Patterns or trends in compliancy rates developed over time will assist

the BIO with recommendations for improvement and ultimately assist to sustainadherence toSheriff’s Office Policies and the Court Order.

During this rating period, compliance rates for all inspections increased. MCSO conducted thefollowing inspections during the 1st Quarter of 2015:

•

CAD Messaging/Alpha Paging System Inspection: The methodology includes inspectionof random ten-day monthly samples for all messaging entries. The inspection complieswith MCSO Policies CP-2, Code of Conduct, CP-3, Work Place Professionalism, and

GM-1, Electronic Communications and Voicemail; and consistent with the Court Order,

paragraph 23. The inspections comply at 100% for April, May, and June 2015.

• Administrative Investigations (Complaints) Inspection: MCSO reviewed a 50% randomsampling of all closed cases from the previous month. The inspection complies with

MCSO Policies GH-2, Internal Investigations and GC-17, Employee DisciplinaryProcedure; and is consistent with the Court Order, paragraphs 33 and 102. The

compliance rates for the second quarter of 2015 were 96% in April, 100% in May, and100% in June 2015.

• Patrol Incident Report Inspection: The Monitor Team chose random samples of incidentreports from all patrol districts and divisions. MCSO conducted a separate inspection for

all lack of identity arrest reports. The inspections comply with MCSO Policies EA-11, Arrest Procedures, EB-1, Traffic Enforcement, Violator Contacts, and Citations

Issuance, EB-2, Traffic Stop Data Collection, CP-2, Code of Conduct, CP-8, Preventing

5

MELC730596



12/35

Racial and Other Biased-Based Profiling; and are consistent with the Court Order,

paragraphs 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, and 96. The compliance rate for the second quarter of

2015 was 89%. In all cases, the review determined that the reports were not bias-basednor did they indicate any racial profiling. Further, the reports did not contain boilerplate

or conclusory language and were consistent throughout; and when applicable, contained

the elements of a crime.

• Patrol Shift Roster Inspection: The inspection is consistent with MCSO Chief of Patrol,Deputy Chief Rodriquez’s directives along with pending changes to MCSO Policy GB-2,Command Responsibility; and is consistent with the Court Order, paragraphs 82, 84, and86. Compliance rates are consistently rising. The compliance rate for the second quarter

of 2015 was nearly 100%.

• Traffic Stop Data Collection Inspection: The Monitor team chose a random sample of

traffic stops. The inspection complies with MCSO Policies EB-1, Traffic Enforcement,

Violator Contacts, and Citations Issuance, and EB-2, Traffic Stop Data Collection; and is

consistent with the Court’s Order, paragraphs 54 a-m, 55, 56, and 57. The traffic stopdata collection compliance rate in October 2014 was 44%. During the first quarter of2015 the compliance rate rose to 60%. The second quarter showed an average monthly

compliance rate of 61%. MCSO will continue to improve with expected changes to the

Vehicle Contact Form.

• County Attorney Disposition Inspection: MCSO conducted a 100% random sampling ofall county attorney complaint dispositions submitted. The inspection complies with

MCSO Policy GF-4, Office Reports and ED-3, Review of Cases Declined forProsecution; and is consistent with the Court’s Order, paragraph 75. The compliance

rates for the second quarter 2015 were 93% in April, 86% in May, and 100% in June

2015.

• Employee Email Inspection: MCSO generates and reviews a random sample of allSheriff’s Office employee email accounts from the previous month. The inspection

complies with MCSO Policies GM-1, Electronic Communications and Voicemail andCP-2, Code of Conduct ; and is consistent with the Court’s Order, paragraph 23. The

compliance rate for the second quarter of 2015 was 94% in April, 100% in May, and

100% in June. Inspectors also conducted a follow-up review of the email accounts oftwelve employees who were deficient in November 2014. They showed no deficiencies

in their follow up review.

•

Supervisory Notes Inspection: MCSO conducts a random sampling of all Blue Teamsupervisory note entries from the prior month. The inspection complies with MCSOPolicy GB-2, Command Responsibility; and is consistent with the Court’s Order,

paragraphs 85, 87, 92, 95, and 99. The Patrol Bureau supervisory note compliance ratefor November 2014 was only 2%. The rate increased to 98% during the second quarter

of 2015.

6

MELC730597



13/35

• District Operations Inspection: MCSO inspects district operations monthly. The BIOChief identifies one or two districts/divisions for uniform inspections using a matrix of

random facility employees. MCSO inspected district operations at Districts 1, 6, and

Lake Patrol during the second quarter of 2015. Compliance rates ranged from 94-100%.In all three inspections, there was no evidence that Maricopa County property or

equipment was being used in any way that discriminates or denigrates any person.

The following table represents the overall inspection compliancy rate for each month during the

second quarter of 2015. The second column of each month shows the increase or decrease

compared to the previous month or quarter.

Table #2

Bureau of Internal Oversight - Monthly Inspections Compliancy Rate

Inspection April May June

Significant Operations N/A - N/A - N/A -

Shift Rosters Completed 99.8% +0.7 99.5% -0.3 99.8% +0.3

Shift Rosters Accuracy 96.6% +9.8 91.7% -4.9 96.2% +4.5

Admin Investigations 96.0% -4.0 100.0% +4.0 100% 0.0

Traffic Stop Data 60.0% 0.0 57.1% -2.9 68.6% +11.5

Employee Email 94.3% -2.8 100% +5.7 100% 0.0

Supervisor Notes (Sworn) 100% +21.0 96.3% -3.7 98.3% +2.0

Supervisor Notes(Detention & Civilian)

84.4% 0.0 91.1% +6.7 91.7% +0.6

Employee CAD/Alpha Paging 100% 0.0 100% 0.0 100% 0.0

County Attorney Dispositions 93.0% +4.5 86.0% -7.0 100%(Turn-Downs)

+14.0

District Operations (District 1) 100% - - - - -

District Operations (District 6) - - 100% - - -

District Operations (Lakes) - - - - 94.2% -

District Property (District 1) N/A - - - - -

District Property (District 6) - - N/A - - -

District Property (Lakes) - - - - N/A -

Detention Property (Durango) - - - - N/A-

Patrol Incident Report (Quarterly) - - - - 89.0% +3.0

7

MELC730598



14/35

During this rating period, BIO began entering disposition data of all returned BIO Action Forms

into an Access® database. This will enable MCSO to track statistics and identify patterns

regarding how MCSO addresses and corrects inspection deficiencies. Inspectors will generatereports that will identify command, supervisory, and line personnel activity as they pertain to

BIO inspection deficiencies and remedies to improve performance. Also, the database will

permit the analysis and comparisons between districts and divisions to identify those meeting orexceeding expectations and those in need of improvement.

Also during this reporting period, Maricopa County approved an intergovernmental agreement

(IGA) between MCSO and Arizona State University to analyze traffic stops. BIO staff met withDr. Katz, Associate Professor of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona

State University and his staff to discuss ASU’s initial examination and assessment of existing

traffic stop data, a future work plan, and a training schedule for MCSO. MCSO and ASUcontinue to draft a methodology to provide a statistically defensible approach in identifying

warning signs or indicia of racial profiling and other police conduct, consistent with the Court’s

Order, paragraphs 67 and 69, by the second quarter of 2015. BIO and the Early Intervention

Unit attended training sessions that Dr. Katz’s team provided relative to traffic stop data analysis.

Lastly, the BIO completed drafting the methodology for Body Worn Camera inspections and

future audits based on Office PolicyGJ-35, Body Worn Cameras. On June 24, 2015, MCSO published the body camera inspection methodology and body camera inspection checklist,

together with the body-worn camera policy. The BIO revised its administrative investigations

methodology by adding steps to the initial processing of administrative investigations.

E. Assigning Implementation and Compliance Related-Tasks to MCSO Personnel as

Directed by the Sheriff or his DesigneeThe CID, with the Sheriff’s approval, ensures the proper allocation of document production

requests to the appropriate MCSO units to achieve full and effective compliance with the Court

Order. These assignments are as follows:

Table #3

MCSO Unit Assignments for Court Order

Section Unit Name

III. MCSO Implementation Unit and

Internal Agency-Wide Assessment • Court Implementation Division

IV. Monitor Review Process • Court Implementation Division

V. Policies and Procedures

• Human Resources Bureau, Compliance Division - Policy Section

• Court Implementation Division

• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

8

MELC730599



15/35

VI. Pre-Planned Operations

• Human Resources Bureau, Compliance Division – Policy Section


• Detective and Investigations Bureau

VII. Training


• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office• Training Division

VIII. Traffic Stop Documentation and

Data Collection and Review

• Bureau of Internal Oversight


• Early Intervention Unit

IX. Early Identification System (EIS) • Early Intervention Unit

X. Supervision and Evaluation of

Officer Performance

• Command Staff

• Human Resources Bureau, Compliance Division and

Personnel Services Division• Court Implementation Division

• Early Intervention Unit

• Enforcement Bureau

• Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

• Training Division

XI. Misconduct and Complaints

• Command Staff

• Professional Standards Bureau

• Supervisors in each unit

XII. Community Engagement • Community Outreach Division

Section IV – Monitor Review Process

The Court’s Order, Section IV directs submission of policies and appeals, and sets deadlines.Consistent with paragraph 14, MCSO responds expeditiously to all requests for documentation.

Consistent with paragraph 15, MCSO completes resubmissions when requested (e.g., format

changes to document requests, changes to training curriculum via the consultant, etc.).Additionally as per paragraphs 16 and 31, MCSO promptly disseminates Office Policies and

Procedures, and other documents after the Monitor approves them.

Section V – Policies and Procedures

Consistent with paragraph 18 requirements that MCSO deliver police services consistent with theConstitution, United States, and Arizona law, MCSO continually reviews its office policies and

procedures. MCSO is committed to ensuring equal protection and bias-free policing. To ensure

9

MELC730600



16/35

compliance with the Court Order, MCSO continues to comprehensively review all patrol

operations policies and procedures, consistent with the Court Order, paragraph 19.

MCSO published two new policies relevant to the Court Order during this reporting period, GH-

4, Bureau of Internal Oversight and GJ-35, Body Worn Cameras; and published a revision of

GM-1, Electronic Communications and Voicemail.

In addition to its annual review of all Critical Policies, consistent with paragraph 34 requirements

that MCSO review each policy and procedure on an annual basis to ensure that the policy

provides effective direction to personnel and remains consistent with the Court Order, the PolicySection initiated its annual review of all policies relevant to the Court Order.

Court Order related policies under annual review:

• CP-2, Code of Conduct

• CP-8, Preventing Racial and Other Bias-Based Profiling

• EA-5, Enforcement Communications EA-11, Arrest Procedures

•

EB-1, Traffic Enforcement, Violator Contacts, and Citation Issuance • EB-2, Traffic Stop Data Collection

• GJ-33, Significant Operations

MCSO Policy Section is working on the following drafts:

• GA-1, Development of Written Orders

• GB-2, Command Responsibility

• GC-4, Employee Performance Appraisals

• GF-3, Criminal History Record Information and Public Records

• GG-2, Training Administration

• GH-2 , Internal Investigations

•

GJ-26, Sheriff’s Reserve Deputy Program

• GJ-27, Sheriff’s Posse Program

Policies pending legal review:

• GC-7, Transfer of Personnel

• GC-17, Employee Discipline Procedures

Policies submitted to the Monitors and Plaintiff’s Counsel for review:

• CP-3, Workplace Professionalism

• CP-5, Truthfulness

•

GF-5, Incident Report Guidelines

To quickly implement the Court’s directives, MCSO disseminated three Briefing Boards. Therewere no Administrative Broadcasts disseminated during this reporting period

1. The published

Briefing Boards are listed in the following table:

1 Briefing Boards and Administrative Broadcasts have the full effect of an Office Policy.

10

MELC730601



17/35

Table #4

MCSO Briefing Boards

B.B. # Subject Date Issued

15-04 Seizure of Drivers’ Licenses and License Plates 04-14-15

15-07 Policy Revisions – GC-9, Personnel Information , Records, and Files; GH-4, Bureau of Internal Oversight ; GC-10, Release of Employment Information

05-28-15

15-10Policy Revisions – GM-1, Electronic Communication and Voice Mail; GJ-35, Body

Worn Cameras 06-23-15

MCSO Briefing Board 15-04, Seizure of Drivers’ Licenses and License Plates, published April

17, 2015 announced protocols related to the seizure and impound of license plates and drivers’

licenses/identification cards under civil and criminal state statutes as well as the procedure forthe elimination and disposal of the collection boxes for these items by districts or divisions. This

directive allows for greater accountability and tracking of seized items and protects deputies and

theOffice from claims of wrongful seizures and storage of these items.

MCSO Briefing Boards 15-07 and 15-10, published on May 28, 2015 and June 23, 2015respectively, announced policy revisions and new policies, for Court Order related policies. The

Briefing Board announced the publication of new policies GH-4, Bureau of Internal Oversight and GJ-23, Body-Worn Cameras; and policy revision to GM-1, Electronic Communication and

Voice Mail.

MCSO also published ten new or revised policies, five Briefing Boards, and thirty-four

Administrative Broadcasts not relevant to the Court Order during this reporting period.

Consistent with the Court Order, paragraph 31requirements regarding MCSO personnel’s receipt

and comprehension of the policies and procedures, MCSO implemented the E-Policy system in

January 2015. MCSO utilizes the system to distribute and require attestation of all BriefingBoards and published policies. E-Policy memorializes and tracks employee compliance with therequired reading of MCSO Policy and Procedures, acknowledging an understanding of them, and

expressing an agreement to abide by the requirements of the policies and procedures. MCSO

makes available the Critical, Detention, Enforcement, and General Policies via E-Policy as aresource for all MCSO personnel.

During this reporting period, MCSO utilized the E-Policy system to distribute and obtainattestation of thirteen policies, including three policies related to the Court Order (GH-4, Bureau

of Internal Oversight , GJ-35, Body-Worn Cameras, and GM-1, Electronic Communication and

Voicemail.

Section VI – Pre-Planned Operations

The Court’s Order, paragraph 36 requires that MCSO develop a written protocol including a

statement of operational motivations and objectives, parameters for supporting documentation,

operational plans, and instructions for supervisors, deputies, and posse members. To comply with paragraph 36, MCSO developed and disseminated Office Policy, GJ-33, Significant Operations.

11

MELC730602



18/35

GJ-33 includes protocol templates and instructions for Significant Operations and Patrols as the

Court Order, Section VI directs. MCSO completed training for this policy on December 31,

2014

On January 6, 2015, MCSO ceased any active, pending, and future investigations related to ARS

§13-2009(A)(3) and the portion of ARS § 13-2008(A)

2

that address actions committed “with theintent to obtain or continue employment.” Additionally, MCSO disbanded the Criminal

Employment Unit (CEU) and reassigned CEU deputies effective January 19, 2015.

The MCSO did not conduct any significant operations during this rating period.

Section VII – Training

The Court’s Order requires MCSO to develop three types of training: 1) Bias-Free Policing

consistent with paragraphs 48 and 49; 2) Detentions, Arrests, and Immigration-Related Laws

consistent with paragraphs 50 and 51; and 3) Supervisor and Command Level Trainingconsistent with paragraphs 52 and 53.

The Training Division will ensure that all relevant personnel receive training initially andannually thereafter consistent with paragraphs 48, 50, and 52. To assist in this compliance, the

Training Division initiated a revision of Policy GG-1, formerly titled Basic Training Program,

renamed to Law Enforcement Training Administration. This policy will combine policies and protocols from the previous GG-1 and GG-2, Training Administration. (The “new” GG-2 will

solely focus on detention related training and administration.) Policy GG-1, Law Enforcement

Training Administration delineates the required initial and subsequent annual training related tothe Court Order; in addition to lesson plan development, instructor criteria, course assessments

and remediation, master calendar, and records.

The Training Division continues to work with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to draft

the annual training curriculum to comply with the Court Order.

The Training Division worked with MCSO personnel from the BIO and CID and continues todevelop the Supervisor Training Lesson Plan and practical scenarios. A final lesson plan was not

completed during this reporting period.

On 06-26-15 the Training Division provided to the Monitor for review, the lesson plan for the

annual/continuing Bias-Free Policing and Detention, Arrests, and Immigration Related Laws

training. This annual training was renamed Bias-Free Policing and the Fourth Amendment .

During this reporting period, the Training Division administered one in-person, two-day Bias-

Free Policing and Detention, Arrests, and Immigration Related Laws training to the deputy

graduating class #135, which also included reserve deputies and posse members. The deputies,

2 Pursuant to U.S. District Judge David G. Campbell’s January 5, 2015 Order in Puente Arizona v. Joseph Arpaio

(previously distributed via CID).

12

MELC730603



19/35

reserve deputies, and posse members took the test via e-Learning immediately following the

conclusion of the second day of instruction.

The Training Division continues to develop a lesson plan for TraCS training. A final lesson plan

was not completed during this reporting period.

The Training Division worked with the body camera vendor to develop a lesson plan for Body-

Worn Cameras. On June 6, 2015 the lesson plan was provided to the Monitor for review. The

Training Division continues to create a training schedule for the body camera roll out to patrol

deputies. It is anticipated that it will take one to two weeks to train-the-trainer; andapproximately three hours to train employees on the equipment, operation, functionality, and

Office Policy GJ-35, Body-Worn Cameras

During this reporting period, the Training Division administered two in-person Blue Team

training classes to the deputy graduating class #135 and to detention officers in the training

academy.

Consistent with the Court Order, paragraph 31 requirements regarding receipt and

comprehension of the policies and procedures by MCSO personnel, MCSO implemented the e-

Policy system in January 2015. It is a web-based system that operates similar to e-Learning andis now utilized to distribute and obtain attestations of all Briefing Boards and published policies.

e-Policy memorializes and tracks employee compliance with the required reading of MCSO

Policy and Procedures, acknowledging an understanding of them, and expressing an agreementto abide by the requirements of the policies and procedures. MCSO imports all information

regarding completed policy modules into Skills Manager, from which a report can be generated.

The Critical, Detention, Enforcement, and General Policies are available via e-Policy as aresource for all MCSO personnel to view.

During this reporting period, e-Policy was utilized to disseminate three Court Order related policies: GH-4, Bureau of Internal Oversight , GJ-35, Body-Worn Cameras; and GM-1, Electronic Communication and Voicemail. Additionally it was utilized to disseminate one Court

Order related Briefing Board, Briefing Board 15-04, Seizure of Drivers’ Licenses and License

Plates. Lastly, e-Policy was used to disseminate ten non Court Order related policies.

Section VIII – Traffic Stop Documentation And Data Collection And Review

In the Court ordered related training, MCSO disseminated and delivered, two traffic-related

policies, EB-1, Traffic Enforcement, Violator Contacts, and Citation Issuance and EB-2, TrafficStop Data Collection. The policies specifically address traffic stop requirements, ensuring that

they are bias-free. By disseminating and training staff on these policies, MCSO complies with

the Court’s Order, paragraph 54.

Between April 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015, the BIO conducted three traffic stop related

inspections to comply with the Court’s Order, paragraph 64 (see Section III-D). The inspections

were for traffic stop data, consistent with paragraphs 54-57, to ensure that MCSO: a) collected

13

MELC730604



20/35

all traffic stop data to comply with MCSO Policy, EB-2, Traffic Stop Data Collection; b)

accurately completed all forms; c) closed and validated all TraCS forms; d) used the correct

CAD codes and sub codes; and e) supervisors review and memorialize Incident Reports withinguidelines. The traffic stop data collection compliance rate in October 2014 was 44%. During

the first quarter of 2015 the compliance rate rose to 60%. During the second quarter of 2015, the

compliance remained at 61%.

MCSO implemented TraCS to electronically collect existing handwritten traffic stop data as the

Court Order requires. The goal of TraCS is to minimize collecting required data on paper forms

and to transition to collecting electronic data only, as paragraph 60 requires.

Further, MCSO implemented a system that allows deputies to input traffic stop data

electronically. As of June 30, 2015 MCSO installed all 183 marked patrol vehicles assigned tothe Patrol Bureau with the electronic equipment, including the TraCS system, to capture traffic

stop data consistent with the Court Order paragraph 54 ; including the issuance of a contact

receipt to the vehicle occupants.

During this reporting period, MCSO changed the TraCS system to more accurately track

data. MCSO made the following changes:

Table #5

Summary of TraCS Changes

Entity Issue Resolution

TraCS

Toolbar

TraCS did not have a way to record information

about supervisor review of forms; or to

document that the form was discussed with the

supervisor.

Added two new buttons to the told bar for supervisors.

The supervisor review button will be on the “Action” tab

and only available while a form is open. The “Discussed

With Deputy” button will only be available in the “Forms

Manager” when no forms are open. Both buttons will logthe information in the “TraCS Activity Log.”

Citation“In-Custody” citations were transmitted to

Courts, contrary to popular belief.

Transmission rule was corrected, preventing In-Custody

citations from being transmitted. Information on the

citation will contain a note, “Citation Not Transmitted,

Reason, In-Custody.”

Citation

Error-a citation number would be assigned to a

hand written citation instead of requiring an “A”

citation number.

Corrected rule.

Contact

Form

Using “20 Minutes” in messages was

misleading.

Changed “20 Minutes” to “Average.”

Citation

Hispanic was not a choice for ORIGIN because

Courts would not accept it. Citation related

reports were skewed when Hispanic was not

recorded.

“Origin” was renamed to “MCSO Origin” and Hispanic

is an option. “MCSO Origin” will populate the “Post-

Stop Ethnicity” for the driver on the Contact Form.

However, if Hispanic is selected, a blank will be sent to

the Court as it is when no origin is selected.

14

MELC730605



21/35

MCSO is committed to developing and implementing a system for the audio and video recording

of traffic stops and a protocol for storing and reviewing the recordings pursuant to the Court’s

Order, paragraphs 61-63. On October 10, 2014, the Court amended its Order because MCSOand the Plaintiffs agreed to MCSO purchasing, utilizing, and maintaining on-person audio and

video equipment. The BIO and the Technology Management Bureau visited the Oakland Police

Department to further learn about usage, maintenance, and security of audio and video recordingequipment.

MCSO compared body cameras offered. The Monitor and Plaintiff approved the Taser Axon

Flex camera system. This system is worn around the head area and provides different wearoptions, enabling the camera to specifically look where the user is looking. The

EVIDENCE.com cloud platform provides a secure storage solution for digital evidence captured

from the camera.

On January 21, 2015 Maricopa County approved the contract between Maricopa County and

Taser International (14113-IGA) to purchase 700 Taser Axon Flex camera systems, docking

stations, CAD integration with EVIDENCE.com digital storage solution, and additional storage.

The Technology Management Bureau continues to evaluate the IT infrastructure to determine the

Patrol Districts upload capabilities to support the video downloaded from the body worncameras. It is anticipated that infrastructure implementation by Cox Communications may begin

in August 2015 in most districts, and possibly in September or October 2015 for District 4 and

SWAT.

The Training Division worked with Taser International to develop a lesson plan for Body-Worn

Cameras. On June, 26 2015 the lesson plan was provided to the Monitor for review. TheTraining Division continues to create a training schedule for the body camera roll out to patrol

deputies. It is anticipated that it will take one to two weeks to train-the-trainer; and

approximately three hours to train employees on the equipment, operation, functionality, andOffice Policy GJ-35, Body-Worn Cameras.

On June 24,2 2015 Office Policy GJ-35, Body-Worn Cameras, along with the Body Camera Inspection Methodology and Body Camera Inspection Checklist , were published and

disseminated via e-Policy.

Section IX – Early Identification System (EIS)

The Early Identification System (EIS) continues to evolve following the major steps outlined in

the previous quarterly reports.

During this reporting period, the IA Pro system set 404 alerts:

• The system forwarded 141 to supervisors for further inquiry.

• The system completed 118 inquiries during this quarter and twenty-three remain open.The Early Intervention Unit (EIU) processed and quality-assured the following:

• County Attorney Actions - 443

15

MELC730606



22/35

• Notices of Claim / Law Suits / Summons - 21

• Supervisor Notes – 12,442

• Briefing Notes - 771

• Commendations - 262

• Critical Incident - 2

•

Firearm Discharges - 1• Forced Entries - 3

• Integrity Tests of the Complaint System - 24

• IR Memorializations - 5

• Line Level Inspections - 635

• Vehicle Accidents - 16

• Uses of Force - 47

• Other Tracked Behavior - 2566

(Off-Duty Police Contact; Loss of Badge/ID; Loss of Equipment: Speed (over 100mph, over 85 mph); Exposure/Injuries; Failure to Show for Training; Missed

Logbook Entry; Missed Security Walks; Money Shortages; Property and Evidence

Rejection; Security Breaches; Unscheduled Absences; TraCS Incidental Contacts;TraCS Citation Rate Deviation; TraCS Post-Stop Perceived Race/Ethnicity 30%

deviation from benchmark; TraCS Unknown Post-Stop Ethnicity)

Several additions and changes were added to the EIS including:

• The traffic stop analysis was improved to include the comparison of Deputies on Squads

and the comparison of Squads in Districts. Two new tools were created for patrolsupervisors to assist in their analysis of patrol data for their employees.

•

The EI Pro program moved from the beta phase to production phase. It now includes asearch engine, drill down tools for each event, and tools to aid supervisors in identifying behaviors which may need to be addressed.

• Line Level Inspections entered in Blue Team improved to include the ability toelectronically “carbon copy” (cc) other supervisors and are now made available forcommanders to review.

MCSO acquired funding and purchased the EI Pro program from CI Technologies, in addition toservices and technical support, to allow supervisor accessibility to view subordinate files as

Section IX directs. MCSO implemented the EI Pro program in January 2015 and the program

provides first line supervisors with unfettered access to information about their subordinates.Supervisors view, review, and print incidents entered in the EIS.

During this reporting period, consistent with paragraphs 80-81 requirements, the EIU continued

to revise the EIS policy. EIU submitted the revised policy to the Monitor Team for comment andapproval on June 25, 2015.

16

MELC730607



23/35

Section X – Supervision and Evaluations of Officer Performance

The Court Order requires increased deputy supervision. To increase deputy supervision, MCSO:

Supervisors mandated that their subordinates read the required court documents; they achieved

100% completion. Additionally, the Patrol Bureau Chief held monthly meetings with DistrictCommanders to discuss progress and future measures to take in accordance with the Court

Order. Most notably, supervisor training will reinforce supervisory duties.

The Patrol Bureau Deputy Chief continues to review supervisory staffing levels and assignmentsthroughout patrol to ensure continued compliance with the twelve to one ratio requirements

consistent with paragraph 82; and that deputies are assigned to a single, consistent, and clearly-

identified supervisor, consistent with paragraphs 84 and 86. The BIO conducts a monthlyinspection of shift rosters to ensure the supervisory ratio and that deputies are assigned to and

work the same days and hours as their supervisor. Through the EIU and the EIS, quality

assurance efforts will occur as implementation continues. Blue Team captures data to ensure

supervisors discuss the stops made by each deputy they supervise and the BIO inspectssupervisors’ monthly notes to ensure that supervisors document those discussions, consistent

with the Court’s Order, paragraph 85.

The BIO conducts office-wide audits and inspections, further ensuring supervisory responsibility

and accountability. The BIO conducts inspections to ensure 1) deputies notify a supervisor

before initiating an immigration-related investigation and before affecting an immigration-related arrest consistent with the requirements of paragraph 89; 2) deputies document detentions

and stops, and submit incident reports by the end of shift consistent with paragraphs 90 and 93;

and 3) all detentions and arrests are supported by reasonable suspicion and probable causeconsistent with paragraphs 91 and 94.

MCSO personnel from the BIO and CID continued to develop the Supervisor Training LessonPlan and practical scenarios. A final lesson plan was not completed during this reporting period.

The Human Resources Bureau, Personnel Services Division continues to revise MCSO

Employee Performance Appraisals.

Section XI – Misconduct and Complaints

To assure that MCSO’s actions comply with the Court Order and the high standards the Office

expects, MCSO took a multiple-step approach to address misconduct and complaints.

Although MCSO revised, disseminated, and delivered during the Court Order-related training

(4th

Quarter 2014), Policy GH-2, Internal Investigations, the Professional Standards Bureau

(PSB) is in the process of revising Office Policy GH-2. Once revised, the PSB will train divisionlevel supervisory personnel.

17

MELC730608



24/35

The PSB is creating a training curriculum related to administrative investigations conducted at

the division level to ensure quality and efficiency. The PSB is creating an Administrative

Investigation Checklist to ensure investigators complete all required tasks during anadministrative investigation; and is revising all administrative investigative forms and resources

available to employees.

Consistent with the Court’s Order, paragraph 102, MCSO mandated that any internal or external

misconduct allegations, must be reported to the PSB. Whenever misconduct is alleged, the PSB

must assign an IA case number. During this reporting period, the PSB assigned 265 IA case

numbers and completed and closed 263 IA cases.

Consistent with paragraph 103, requiring MCSO to conduct regular, targeted, and random

integrity audit checks, The PSB continues to work with the BIO to identify some of theinspections currently conducted, which may relate to compliance with this paragraph. In

addition, PSB is collaborating with the Monitor to determine what types of activity would

constitute a “random integrity audit check” and continues to create an outline for an Integrity

Check Operations Manual to assist with conducting these types of audits.

Lastly, the EIU continues to utilize IA Pro and Blue Team to monitor and analyze behavior that

may lead to misconduct (see Section IX) and the BIO continues to address Court Ordercompliance by conducting audits and inspections of employee performance and misconduct (see

Section III).

Section XII – Community Engagement

MCSO continues its community engagement efforts. The Community Outreach Division

facilitates, promotes, and participates in events that unite MCSO personnel with community

members in comfortable, non-law enforcement environments. For this reporting period,Community Outreach Division personnel participated in the following public events:

• Coffee with a Cop events throughout Maricopa County-Chandler, Fountain Hills,

Litchfield Park, Phoenix, Sun City West, Queen Creek

• Block Watch Meetings – Litchfield Park

• Easter Parade, Phoenix

• Spring Festival, Grace Walk Church

• Girl Scouts

• Tip-a-Cop in Tempe to benefit the Special Olympics

18

MELC730609



25/35

• Canine Demonstrations-Anthem Community Center; Peter Piper Pizza Summer Kids

Day, Avondale

• Career Days, including Aqua Fria High School, Brookline College, Campo Verde High

School, Festival Foothills Elementary, Littleton Elementary, Skyline High School,

• School sponsored events including Aguila Elementary School Field Day; Canyon Springs

Elementary School Bullying Presentation; Desert Willow Elementary School Family

Night; Quartz Hill Elementary Demo; Tres Rios Elementary Future Day

• Collected and donated books to the Guadalupe Branch Public Library Read to Children;

Chicanos Por La Causa; and the Queen Creek Family Resource Center

• Citizens Academy Graduation

• Maricopa County Teen Leadership Experience

• Other community events held within Maricopa County

Additionally, the Chief Deputy, Command Staff, members from the Patrol Bureau, Professional

Standards Bureau, and CID, at Sheriff Arpaio’s direction; attended the Monitor’s Community

Outreach Meetings throughout the county to further constructively engage with the communityand work towards reform, improving community relations, and rebuilding public confidence and

trust.

19

MELC730610



26/35

PART III: RESPONSE TO CONCERNS RAISED IN THE MONITOR’S PREVIOUSQUARTERLY REPORT

The Monitor provided a copy of their Third Quarterly Report, published July 14, 2015 to the

Court Implementation Division. In review of their report, MCSO responds to the following

concerns:

Page 35, Paragraph 42:“The persons presenting this Training in each area shall be competent instructors with

significant experience and expertise in the area. Those presenting Training on legal

matters shall also hold a law degree from an accredited law school and be admitted to a

Bar of any state and/or the District of Columbia.”

In response to this paragraph, the Training Division, with assistance from the Policy Section, is

currently revising MCSO Policy GG-1, Peace Officer Training Administration. The policy

addresses the establishment of “instructor criteria” by delineating minimum qualifications and

includes additional considerations suggested by the Monitor.

Page 36, Paragraph 43:“…MCAO has indicated that training policy modifications under consideration may

include…the Master Training Calendar…We believe the inclusion of these concepts

would improve not only the quality of the development and delivery of training, but

ensure that the Training Division embraces its oversight responsibilities for all

Departmental training.”

In response to this paragraph, the Training Division developed a Master Training Calendar to

track and schedule all Order Related Training. It is named the “Court Ordered Master Training

Calendar.” The Training Division is developing a Microsoft Outlook based calendar to publishthe Master Training Calendar for all MCSO personnel to view the calendar via Outlook, via

LAN access, or web access.

Page 40, Paragraph 44:“The inability of MCSO to link together the Skills Manager Database, the MCSO Sworn

Training Compliance Report, the Posse Training Compliance Report, the Reserve

Training Compliance Report, and the Retired Reserved Training Compliance Report with

Master Rosters continues to hamper documentation of training, and will continue to do

so as the volume of training increases with the development and delivery of other Order-

mandated training in order to achieve compliance, such as EIS and the use of Body

Cams.”

In response to this paragraph, the Training Division stressed that compliance reports aregenerated from Skills Manager. During the July 2015 Site Visit, the Training Division described

and explained the training records management system and reporting capabilities to the Monitor

Team. MCSO provided the team with an all-inclusive compliance report containing all personnel

20

MELC730611



27/35

on one report to demonstrate that reports all linked. The Monitor Team commented that the

report was “too confusing,” and asked that MCSO continue providing separate reports with the

different employee classifications.

Pages 41-44, Paragraphs 46 and 47:

In response to these paragraphs, the revision of MCSO Policy GG-1, Peace Officer Training Administration incorporates specific concepts, including the following:

• A definition of training and the establishment of minimum requirements for such

training , in an effort to further standardize the process as suggested by theMonitor Team.

• Establishment of a Training Cycle for all court ordered Training delineated within

the Court’s Order. The cycle provides for, among other items, the continualevaluation of the effectiveness of delivered Training.

•

Creation of a Master Training Calendar by which the MCSO will track and makeavailable to its employees, and monitor team, all court related Training.

• At the direction of MCSO executive command, development of a formal reportingmechanism within the Training Cycle which addresses conveyance of systemicissues identified by Early Intervention Unit.

21

MELC730612



28/35

CONCLUSION

MCSO has taken major steps toward compliance with the Court’s Order. The ability in the nearfuture to implement training and promulgate additional policies and procedures will further assist

in these efforts. A large amount has been achieved in many areas particularly involving the

creation of directives; the delivery of Court Order related training; technology acquisition and programming to allow for data collection; the implementation of electronic data collection; the

creation of the Early Intervention Unit and the Bureau of Internal Oversight; increased

supervision; improvements to the PSB data collection process, and community outreach. MCSO

is currently developing comprehensive and specific metrics and guidelines to measure full andeffective compliance and will be seeking feedback and approval from the Monitor Team to

ensure that MCOS’s measures of success are congruent with the Court’s Order.

22

MELC730613



29/35

Appendix A: MCSO Melendres Court Order Compliance Chart

MCSO Melendres Court Order Compliance Chart Completed on: Aug. 13,

aragraph

#Requirement

Phase 1: Development (Policy & Training) Phase 2: ImplementationDate o

ComplIn

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

Not

Applicable

In

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

ection III. MCSO Implementation Unit and Internal Agency-wide Assessment

9Form a Court Order

Implementation Unit X X

10Collection and Maintenance of All

Data and RecordsX X

11MCSO Quarterly Report

X XSep.

201

12 MCSO Annual Internal Assessment X X

13MCSO Annual Internal Assessment

X X

ection V. Policies and Procedures

19

Conduct Comprehensive Review of

All Policies X X

21Create and Disseminate Policy

Regarding Biased-Free PolicingX X

22Reinforce Discriminatory Policing is

UnacceptableX X

23

Modify Code of Conduct Policy (CP-

2): Prohibited Use of County

Property

X X July 14,

24

Ensure Operations are Not

Motivated, Initiated, or Based on

Race or Ethnicity

X X

25Revise Policies to Ensure Bias-Free

Traffic EnforcementX X

Apr.

201

26Revise Policies to Ensure Bias-Free

Investigatory Detentions and ArrestsX X

27Remove LEAR Policy from Policies

and ProceduresX X

Sep.

201

28Revise Policies Regarding

Immigration-Related LawX X

Apr.

201

29

All Policies and Procedures shall

Define Terms Clearly, Comply with

Applicable Law and Order

Requirements, and Use Professional

Standards

X XApr.

201

30

Submit All Policies to Monitor within

90 Days of Effective Date; and Have

Approval by Monitor Prior to

Implementation

X XApr.

201

31

Ensure Personnel Receive, Read, and

Understand Policy X X

32

All Personnel shall Report Violations

of Policy; and Employees shall be

Held Accountable for Policy

Violations

X X

33

Personnel Who Engage in

Discriminatory Policing shall be

Subject to DisciplineX X

34On Annual Basis, Review Policy and

Document It in WritingX X

23

MELC730614



30/35

aragraph

# Requirement


ComplIn

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

Not

Applicable

In

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

ection VI. Pre-Planned Operations

35

Monitor shall Regularly Review

Documents of any Specialized Units

Enforcing Immigration-Related Lawsto Ensure Accordance with Law and

Court Order

X X

36

Ensure Significant Ops or Patrols are

Race-Neutral in Fashion; Written

Protocol shall be Provided to

Monitor in Advance of any

Significant Op or Patrol

X XApr.

201

37

Have Standard Template for Op

Plans and Standard Instructions for

Supervisors, Deputies, and Posse

Members

X XApr.

201

38

Create and Provide Monitor with

Approved Documentation of

Significant Op within 10 Days After

Op

X XApr.

201

40

Notify Monitor and Plaintiffs within

24 hrs. of any Immigration Related

Traffic Enforcement Activity or

Significant Op Arrest of 5 or More

People

X XApr.

201

ection VII. Training

42Selection and Hiring of Instructors

for Supervisor Specific TrainingX X

43

Training at Least 60% Live Training,

40% On-line Training, and Testing to

Ensure ComprehensionX X

44Training Schedule, Keeping

Attendance, and Training RecordsX X

45

Training may Incorporate Role-

Playing Scenarios, Interactive

Exercises, and LecturesX X

46Curriculum, Training Materials, and

Proposed InstructorsX X

47Regularly Update Training (from

Feedback and Changes in Law)X X

48

Bias-Free Policing Training

Requirements (12 hrs. Initially, then

6 hrs. Annually)

X XApr.

201

49

Bias-Free Policing Training shall

Incorporate Current Developments

in Federal and State Law and MCSO

Policy

X XApr.

201

50Fourth Amendment Training (6 hrs.Initially, then 4 hrs. Annually) X X

Apr.

201

51

Fourth Amendment Training shall

Incorporate Current Developments

in Federal and State Laws and MCSO

Policy

X XApr.

201

52Supervisor Responsibilities Training

(6 hrs. Initially, then 4 hrs. Annually) X X

53Supervisor Responsibilities Training

CurriculumX X

24

MELC730615



31/35

aragraph

# Requirement


ComplIn

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

Not

Applicable

In

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

ection VIII. Traffic Stop Documentation and Data Collection and Review

54Collection of Traffic Stop Data

X X

55Assign Unique ID for EachIncident/Stop, So Other

Documentation can Link to Stop

X XDec.

201

56Maintaining Integrity and Accuracy

of Traffic Stop Data X X

57

Ensure Recording of Stop Length

Time and Providing Signed Receipt

for Each Stop

X X

58

Ensure all Databases Containing

Individual-Specific Data Comply with

Federal and State Privacy Standards;

Develop Process to Restrict

Database Access

X XSep.

201

59

Providing Monitors and Plaintiffs'

Representative Full Access to

Collected Data

X XSep.

201

60Develop System for Electronic Data

Entry by DeputiesX X

61

Installing Functional Video and

Audio Recording Equipment (Body-

Cameras)

X X

62Activation and Use of Recording

Equipment (Body-Cameras) X X

63Retaining Traffic Stop Written Data

and Camera Recordings X X

64

Protocol for Periodic Analysis of

Traffic Stop Data and Data Gathered

for Significant OpsX X

65Designate Group to Analyze

Collected Data

X X

66Conduct Annual, Agency-Wide

Comprehensive Analysis of DataX X

67Warning Signs or Indicia of Possible

Racial Profiling or Other MisconductX X

68Criteria for Analysis of Collected

Patrol Data (Significant Ops)X X

Dec.

201

69Supervisor Review of Collected Data

for Deputies under Their CommandX X

70

Response to/Interventions for

Deputies or Units Involved in

Misconduct

X X

71

Providing Monitor and Plaintiffs'

Representative Full Access to

Supervisory and Agency Level

Reviews of Collected Data

X XApr.

201

ection IX. Early Identification System (EIS)

72Develop, implement, and maintain a

computerized EISX X

73

Create Unit or Expand Role of MCSO

IT to Develop, Implement, and

Maintain EIS

X X

74Develop and Implement Protocol for

Capturing and Inputting DataX X

25

MELC730616



32/35

aragraph

# Requirement


ComplIn

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

Not

Applicable

In

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

75EIS shall Include a Computerized

Relational Database X X

76EIS shall Include Appropriate ID Info

for Each DeputyX X

Dec.

201

77

Maintaining Computer Hardware

and Software, All Personnel Have

Ready and Secure Access

X XApr.

201

78Maintaining All Personally

Identifiable Information X X

79

EIS Computer Program and

Hardware will be Operational, Fully

Implemented, and Use in

Accordance of Policies and Protocol

X X

80EIS Education and Training for all

EmployeesX X

81

Develop and Implement Protocol for

Using EIS and Information Obtained

From It

X X

ection X. Supervision and Evaluation of Officer Performance

83Provide Effective Supervision of

Deputies X X

84Adequate Number of Supervisors (1

Field Supervisor to 12 Deputies) X X

85Supervisors Discuss and Document

Traffic Stops with Deputies X X

86Availability of On-Duty Field

Supervisors X X

87Quality and Effectiveness of

Commanders and SupervisorsX X

88

Supervisors in Specialized Units

(Those Enforcing Immigration-

Related Laws) Directly Supervise LE

Activities of New Members

X X

89

Deputies Notify a Supervisor Before

Initiating any Immigration Status

Investigation and/or ArrestX X

90

Deputies Submit Documentation of

All Stops and Investigatory

Detentions Conducted to Their

Supervisor By End of Shift

X X

91

Supervisors Document any

Investigatory Stops and Detentions

that Appear Unsupported by

Reasonable Suspicion or Violate

Policy

X X

92

Supervisors Use EIS to Track

Subordinate's Violations or

Deficiencies in Investigatory Stops

and Detentions

X X

93

Deputies Complete All Incident

Reports Before End of Shift. Field

Supervisors Review Incident Reports

and Memorialize Their Review

within 72 hrs. of an Arrest

X X

26

MELC730617



33/35

aragraph

# Requirement


ComplIn

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

Not

Applicable

In

Compliance Deferred

Not in

Compliance

94

Supervisor Documentation of Any

Arrests that are Unsupported by

Probable Cause or Violate PolicyX X

95

Supervisors Use EIS to TrackSubordinate's Violations or

Deficiencies in Arrests and the

Corrective Actions Taken

X X

96

Command Review of All Supervisory

Review Related to Arrests that are

Unsupported by Probable Cause or

Violate Policy

X X

97Commander and Supervisor Review

of EIS ReportsX X

98System for Regular Employee

Performance EvaluationsX X

99

Review of All Compliant

Investigations, Complaints,

Discipline, Commendations, Awards,Civil and Admin. Claims and

Lawsuits, Training History,

Assignment and Rank History, and

Past Supervisory Actions

X X

100

Quality of Supervisory Reviews

Taken into Account in Supervisor's

Own Performance EvaluationX X

101Eligibility Criteria for Assignment to

Specialized UnitsX X

ection XI. Misconduct and Complaints

102Reporting Alleged or Apparent

Misconduct X X

103Audit Check Plan to Detect Deputy

Misconduct

X X

104Deputy Cooperation with

Administrative InvestigationsX X

105

Investigator Access to Collected

Data, Records, Complaints, and

Evaluations

X X

106Disclosure of Records of Complaints

and Investigations X X

Totals: 31 3 41 14 22 12 55 22

Legend

Paragraphs 18, 20, 41, & 82 are Introductory Paragraphs; no compliance requirement

Section I. Definitions; no compliance requirement

Section II. Effective Dates, Jurisdiction and Party Representatives; no compliance requirement

Section XII. Community Engagement (Monitor's responsibility); no compliance requirement

Section XIII. Independent Monitor and Other Procedures Regarding Enforcement; no compliance

requirement

27

MELC730618



34/35

Appendix B: List of MCSO Acronyms

ATU: Anti-Trafficking Unit

BIO: Bureau of Internal Oversight

CAD: Computer Aided Dispatch

CID: Court Implementation Division

CEU: Criminal Employment Unit

EIS: Early Identification System

EIU: Early Intervention Unit

FLMA: Family Medical Leave Act

MCAO: Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

PPMU: Posse Personnel Management Unit

PSB: Professional Standards Bureau

SID: Special Investigations Division

SRT: Special Response Team

TraCS: Traffic Stop Data Collection System

28

MELC730619



35/35

Appendix C: List of Tables

Table 1: Document Production Requests…………………...……………………… 4

Table 2: Bureau of Internal Oversight - Monthly Inspections Compliancy Rate….. 7

Table 3: MCSO Unit Assignments for Court Order……………………………….. 8

Table 4: MCSO Briefing Boards…………………………………………………... 11

Table 5: Summary of TraCS Changes…….……………………………………….. 14


Melendres v Arpaio #1331 MCSO Notice of Filing of Fifth Quarterly Report

Documents

Transcript of Melendres v Arpaio #1331 MCSO Notice of Filing of Fifth Quarterly Report