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
284505255.19/23/15
John T. Masterson, Bar #007447Joseph J. Popolizio, Bar #017434Justin M. Ackerman, Bar #030726JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012Telephone: (602) 263-1700Fax: (602) [email protected]@[email protected]
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
Defendant Arpaio’s Motion in Limine Re: Testimony of Don Vogeland IA 542 and 543
Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio respectfully requests this Court to preclude any
attempt by Plaintiffs to utilize Mr. Vogel’s investigation of IA 542 and 543 to demonstrate
that MCSO does not properly conduct internal investigations.
I. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM ARGUING THAT, BASED ON MR. VOGEL’S TESTIMONY AND INVESTIGATION OF IA 542 ABD 543, THAT MCSO DID NOT PROPERLY CONDUCT IA INVESTIGATIONS.
A. Facts surrounding MCSO’s internal investigation of IA 542 and 543.
Don Vogel was hired by MCSO to conduct an investigation into IA file 542
and 543. [9/17/15 Olson Dep. at 70:13-18, Ex. A]. Mr. Vogel testified that he did not
meet any resistance while performing his investigations. [9/14/15 Vogel Depo. at 92:2-5,
Ex. B]. Mr. Vogel testified that after he turned in his investigation findings on April 16,
2015, it was up to Chief Olson to make decisions on what would happen and whether any
MCSO policies were violated. [Id. at 28:5-12, Ex. B; 9/17/15 Olson Dep. at 63:10-14, Ex.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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
284505255.19/23/15
2
A]. Based on the areas of investigation targeted in Mr. Vogel’s report, Chief Olson
picked policy violations that matched the information collected by Mr. Vogel, and this
was included in Mr. Vogel’s report. [9/17/15 Olson Dep. at 71:2-11, Ex. A].
During Mr. Vogel’s deposition testimony, he claimed he was “shocked”
when he found out that none of his findings had been sustained during the 543
investigation. [Vogel Depo. at 39:9-13, Ex. B]. He claimed that he was shocked because
he felt there was evidence to support the charges he recommended. [Id. at 39:16-17,
97:5-9, Ex. B]. However, in the same breath he also recognized that he did not know
what happened in the IA hearings or if they did additional investigations after he
submitted his findings. [Id. at 39:17-20, 91:6-18, Ex. B]. Moreover, he testified that he
never asked anyone what occurred after he submitted his findings to Chief Olson. [Id. at
40:1-8; 81:16-21, Ex. B]. Rather Mr. Vogel maintained that he was hired to do the
investigation and that’s all he did. [Id. at 40:7-8, Ex. B].
Unsurprisingly, Chief Olson testified that there are preliminary findings and
final findings. The preliminary finding were based solely on Mr. Vogel’s investigation.
[9/17/15 Olson Dep. at 95:3-14, Ex. A]. The final finding were based on the investigation
and the information provided at the predetermination or the name-clearing hearing. [Id.].
As such, Mr. Vogel was not privy to the additional information that Chief Olson used to
determined his final findings. [Id. at 95:15-18, 106:5-9, Ex. A].
B. Analysis
Mr. Vogel was a fact investigator for the MCSO and not an expert witness.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Vogel (1) does not have sufficient foundation
to opine on the adequacy of MCSO’s internal investigations or (2) that it was improper for
Chief Olson to not find violations of MCSO policy in IA 543. Mr. Vogel was clear in his
deposition testimony that he was not aware of additional facts or investigations that took
place after submission of his report to Chief Olson or that he was even hired to determine
if there was violations of MCSO policy (as he was only a fact finder). As such, when Mr.
Vogel was directly questioned regarding whether he felt there was problems with
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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
284505255.19/23/15
3
MCSO’s IA process based on his investigation of 542 and 543, he unequivocally stated
that he never had the opportunity to review the IA process and that he did not have
sufficient understanding or information to comment on the Internal Affairs process at
MCSO. [9/14/15 Depo. of Don Vogel at 72:18-73:2, 96:1-9, 96:23-97:3, Ex. B].
Accordingly, Defendant Arpaio requests that any attempt by Plaintiffs to utilize Mr.
Vogel’s investigation to demonstrate that MCSO does not properly conduct internal
investigations should be precluded.
II. CONCLUSION
Defendant Arpaio respectfully requests this Court to preclude introduction
of Mr. Vogel’s testimony that relates to his opinion regarding whether MCSO sufficiently
conducts internal affairs investigations or whether MCSO should have made policy
violation findings in IA 542 and 543.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2015.
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI, P.L.C.
By /s/John T. MastersonJohn T. MastersonJoseph J. PopolizioJustin M. Ackerman2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012Attorneys for Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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
284505255.19/23/15
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of September, 2015, 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
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 4
EXI{IBIT A
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 21
In The Matter Of:Melendres v
Arpaio
Mike Olson
September I7, 20I 5
Grffin & Associates Court Reporters
2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85016
www. arizonacourtrePorters . com
602 .2 64.2 2 3 0
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Mike Olson - September 17,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
10
11
L2
13
T4
L5
L6
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
63
meetíng?
Ã,. I'm not sure if we had two meetings or one
meetíngl so you may know that, I don't know, but at Eome
poinÈ we worked on guidíng Mr. Vogel on how MCSO
ínÈerna1 affaírs are written up as far as to make t'he
allegations that f it hís invest,ígation, and ÈL¡at,'s why
Tíffani Shaw helped because that,'s what her sectíon does
for MCSO. So we satr ín my office and worked on that
that, morning.
A. Did you discuss the the findings of fact
t,hat, Mr. Vogel had made?
A. He didn't make findings of facts. He had
writt,en the ínvestígatíon and then we helped trim make
allegatíons. rt was up to me to determíne Èhe findíngs.
A. Okay. Did you talk about, any of the any
part, of hís report during that?
A. I rm sure thaÈ we did, yeah. I mean, to get to
t,L¡e allegat,íons, wê had to hawe.
A. Okay. So ín this emaíl the firsÈ líne says¡, "T
meÈ with Chíef Olson thís morníng to assíst him as he
worked to identify potential policy violations on
L4-542." Do you see t,hat?
A. Yes, sir.
A. IÈ sayst, "Clrief Olson was under Èt¡e ímpression
ít ís my responsíbi1íty to identífy polÍcy violaÈions25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Mike Olson - September 17,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
l_L
!2
L3
T4
24
L5
16
L7
L8
t9
20
2L
22
23
70
A. It would t¡awe been much the sarte as the earlier
meetíng except íÈ would trawe, f,or tlre most part, focused
on the 543 Ínvestígation and hís making allegations
again ín thaÈ report.
A. And did you discuss his report, on 543 during
Èhat meeting?
A. I believe we did. I beliewe tt¡at was the focus
of that meeting was to geL tl¡e allegaÈions hammered down
on that one.
A. And what did you discuss about, those
allegations?
A. Whích policy víolations fíÈ his report.
A. Did you discuss did you discuss any fíndíngs
that he L¡ad made asr t,o wlro was responsible for any
policy wiolations?
A. Again, he didnrt make findings, I made the
findíngs. He did the allegatíons and the invesEigative
work.
A. Díd you did you discuss anythíng that he had
written ín hís report about any of the princípals ín the
543 investrígaÈíon?
A. Not that, Itm aware of or I remember.
A. BuÈ you were assígnÍng the policy wíolations?
A. we were assígníng Lt¡e policy wíolatíons.
A. Those were accordingr to each princÍpaI?25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Mike Olson - September 17,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
L1
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
7L
A. Correct.
A. So díd you díscuss whether he had sufficient Èo
fínd certain policy víolations aglainst certain
índivíduals?
A. We díscussed which which policies fít the
specífic area ÈhaÈ he was targeting ín hís
investígat,ion.
A. Based on?
A. Based on what L¡e t¡ad wríÈten.
A. Based on his investigatíon in his report?
A. Correct.
A. And so those were, again, sort of inítial
findíngs of
À. Preliminary findíngs or prelimínary allegatíons
and ÈL¡en I íssued findíngs on those over the next few
days.
A. And those were fíndings as¡ to potentíal policy
wiolations?
.4. Yes ,
A. So would you take ínformation contaíned in his
reporÈ and deÈermine whettrer that information could
consist of a polícy wiolation?
A. Correct.
a. And so at t,he time did you agree ÈhaÈ ttrere
were inítia1 findings of poIícy wiolatíons?25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Mike Olson - September 17,2015
Griffin & Associates Gourt Reporters602.264.2230
L0
LL
L2
1_3
74
L5
L6
1,7
18
L9
20
2t
22
23
24
95
MR. SEGUR.A: Sure. It's LL7O.
MR . POPOLI Z IO : Okay . TLrank you .
A. BY MR. SEGURjA: Tl¡ere's sorü of an initial
finding, correct, of wtret}¡er it's sustaíned or not
susÈained and Èhen a srrbsequent finding?
A. Correct. We call it, a prelíminary finding and
a final fínding.
O. Can you explaín trow how Èt¡e prelímínary
finding and the fínal fíndíngs are made?
A. Certaínly. The prelíminary finding was based
solely upon Mr. Vogel's investigatíon. The final
findíng was based upon the investigation and ttren the
information provided aÈ the predetermination or t,tre
narme - clearing hearíng .
A. So ín order for a finding to change from the
inítÍal to the final, there would have to be some
addítional information prowided?
A. CorrecÈ .
A. WL¡o were the who decided the princípa1s f or
t,his investígation?
A. Mr . Vogel, I aasume, through hís investigatíon.
A. Díd you hawe any ínput in wt¡o tl¡e principals
would be?
A. No, sir.
A. Did you ever suggrest people added that ott¡er25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 6 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Mike Of son - September 17,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
1,L
L2
L3
1"4
1,5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
106
t,hat, he had made here in Task E. Do you ag'ree Èhat
there was evídence to support each of these
MR. POPOLIZIO: Form, foundatsion.
A . BY MR . SEGUR-A 3 - - f indíngs or determínations ?
A. I believe that, that he felt that way. I
Èhink that there's more information provided at the
predetermínation hearing and t,he name - clearing hearíngs
t,hat Mr. Vogel wasnrt involved in, so I thínk that that
ctranges E¡ome things.
A. But, upon reading hís reportr 1zorl agreed that
there was evídence t,o support these deËerminations ?
A. To sr¡pport ttre allegaÈíonsr 1zês.
A. Okay. And so turning back to Tab L, which is
page L66, thírd or fourth page, wlren you made your I
ttrink we called tshem ínit,ial findíngs, for example, the
one on LlO as to Trombí, díd you make those íníÈial
fíndíngs based on Mr. Vogelrs determinaÈíons?
A. Yes, sir.
A. And could that, ínitial determínaEion stand on
iÈs owrr íf, for example, the person against whom itrs
issued doesnrt seek a predeterminatíon trearíng?
A. Yes, sir.
O. Are there times when you make an ínítial
f índíng and Ètrat,'s Èhat?
A. If ttre peraon doesnrÈ show for hís25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 7 of 21
Mike Olson - September 17,2015
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
LL
L2
L3
T4
L5
L6
t7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
Griffin & Associates Couñ Reporters602.264.2230
239
STATE OF ARIZONA, )))
ss.COUNTY OF ¡IT.ARTCOPA
BE IT KNOWN Èhatr the foregoing proceedings weretaken before mei Èhat the witness before Lestifying wasduly sworn by me to test,ify to the wt¡ole truLh; thaÈtlre foregoíng pages are a fuIl, true and aceuraterecord of the proceedings, aII done to Ètre best of myskíll and ability; that tt¡e proceedings were Èaken downby me in short,hand and thereaf Èer reduced to príntunder my directíon.
I CERTIFY that, I am in no way related to any ofthe parties L¡ereto nor am I in any way ínt,erested inthe outcome hereof.
lxltltl
tl Revíew and sígnature was requesÈed.Rewiew and sígnature was waíved.Review and sígnature noÈ required.
tltl
I CERTIFY Èhat I have complíed wiÈh the ethicalobligaÈions set forth ín AC,JA 7-206(F) (3) and AC,.TA7-206 .T(1) (g) (1) and Q) . Dated aÈ Pt¡oenix, Arízo¡la,this 2Oth of September, 2015.
ilennífer Hanssen, RPRCertified ReporÈ,erArizona CR No. 501-65
* * * *
I CERTIFY that GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, hascomplied wítsh the ethícal obligations set fort,h in ACr.fA7 -206 ('J) (1) (g) (1) through (6) .
GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES, LLCRegistered Reporting FirmArízona RRF No. RL005
25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 8 of 21
EXHIBIT B
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 9 of 21
In The Matter Of:
Melendres v
Arpaio
Don Vogel
September I4, 20I 5
Grffin & Associates Court Reporters
2398 E. Camelback Road, Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85016
www. arizonac ourtr ep ort er s . c om
602.264,2230
Original File DV09 1 4 I 5,txt
. :.t:jl
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 10 of 21
L
z
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
LL
L2
13
L4
1_5
1,6
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
28
any post-investígat,ion Ehat may or may not have happened. I
don'L know if one did or one didn't. But my opinÍon is the
aame for every one of Ëhese charging sheets.
BY MR. YOI]NG:
0. So you lhought that there was informatíon that,
would be suffícíenE to sustain each of the charges on the
charging sheets?
A. Yes, sir.
A, And then it was up to Chief Olson thereafter to
make decísions as t,o what would happen with each of those
charges?
A. YeE.
a. Did you confer with chief olson with respect to his
prelíminary findings as shown on these forms where for
example, ês to allegat,íon 2 as to Líeutenant Sousa, hers
fí1Ied in susÈaíned.
Did you talk with him about those findíngs?
A. I haven't spoken to Chief how this proceas
works, I meÈ wÍth Chief Olson and and Ms. Shaw, and I hope
I'm remembering her name correctly, and we completed these
documents. Chief Olson
A. That ís the forms wit,hout the handwritíng? Is that
what yourre referring Èo?
A. Thatrs correct.
A. okay.2s
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 11 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
10
L2
LL
L3
L4
15
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
39
Go ahead and caII.
And I don't rernember if I got her on Èhe first
call or íf she called me back, whatever, bu! she told me that
the 543 resulted in in no sustained complaints.
So that's how how I found out. I didn't
find out Índívidually that Sousa was or wasnrt responsible
and Trombí and you know, I íÈ's my understanding that
vírtualIy all of this was not sustained-
a. what was your reaction when you found out that none
of the findíngs had been sust,aíned in the 543 investigation?
A. I was
MR. I{ASTERSON: Form.
THE I{ITNESS: I wag, again, shocked.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. Why were You shocked?
A. Because I I thought there was evidence to
support support these these these charges. I donrt
know what happened to Èhem after ApríI L6th. I donrt know
what happened Ín the hearings. I don't know what happened,
if they díd any additíonat ínvesÈígatíon, But' with the
ínformatíon I gave them gave them when I was done with
Èhis, I I felt Èhat there was certainly informalion to
support, these charges.
A. Did you ever ask anyone ín the MCSO about what
happened on the 543 findíngs?25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 12 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
10
1l_
L2
1,3
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
L4
24
40
A. You mean after I found out they were cleared?
A. CorrecÈ'.
A. I don'È I don't think I never I never
asked. And I tm just trying to remember if I ever made
maybe made a comment Èo somebody, but I never asked, you
know, what happened here? You know, how did how did this
happen? I didn't ask for an explanat'íon. I was hired to do
the investígation, and Ehat's what I díd.
A. Ðo you feel ín any way t,hat' any of your work went
Èo waste a€t a result, of the across-the-board findíngs of not
sustained in the 543 investigation?
MR. I'IASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
MR. WALKER: .TOiN.
THE WITNESS: WeIl, êt first I wondered why I
did all this work and noÈhing came of it. But but then
afterr 1roü know, kínd of thinking about it and consídering
and Ëhe work wasn't wasted. Information was gathered, and
informatíon was documented. I think I think that Eome
thíngs were they were memorialized' end íf people choose
to what they choose to do wíÈh it, that's theír that's
theír choice.
But at first, I I wondered, but then, I
guess, âE a as a smaIl period of tíme passed, I díd what I
was hired to do. What people do with the product ís it's
up to them.25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 13 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
LL
L2
13
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
72
BY MR. YOIING:
A. Okay. Did you have any aenc¡e from your
investigatíon that the seime people within the department were
concerned about the well-beíng of the civílians whom
Deputy Armendariz I s actions affected?
MR. IIIASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
MR. WALKER: rTOiN.
THE WITNESS: I I don't have any
informaËion to support an opíníon that Èhat that was
consídered or not consídered by MCSO as far as their actions
that they chose or chose not to do with Armendatiz.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. WeII, would you agree wíth me Èhab it should have
been a consideration?
A. I agree wiÈh You.
MR. I'IASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. Do you thínk thaE the íssues that you discussed in
your 542 report show problems in t,he IA process at MCSO?
MR. IIÍ,ASTERSON: FOTM.
MR. WALKER: iloin.
THE WITNESS: I r¡ever had an opportunity to
review the IA process. I know that, there were breakdowns in
some of the casea that I was specifically that were
t,hat were specifically parÈ of thís caae. But as a general25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 14 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
10
1L
L2
13
L4
1-5
L6
L7
L8
L9
22
23
20
2L
24
73
whole, I I couldn't coÍlment on on the Internal Af fairs
area at Mcso.
BY MR. YOIING:
0. What, are the IA breakdowns that you specíficalIy
have ín mind when you answered my last question?
A. GeÈting a case from the Patrol Division to Internal
Affaírs for invest,igation, geÈting ít logged in, gett,ing it
to case management and assígned to an investígator. I thínk
that that's very evídent in Èhe Amber Murphy case. I t'hink
that t,here was aome a again, trackíng, I guess you
could say. There was a problem with the taking Ehe patrol
car to the bar. That seemed to disappear. Trombi's failure
to compleEe the admínístratíve end of the Amber Murphy
investigation by issuíng the the disciplíne.
O. Anything elee?
A. ThaL's all that that's all that's coming Èo mínd
right now. If somethingl comesr 1rou know...
A. Do you have any views as to how those deficiencies,
at least as displayed ín the examples that you know of' can
be solved?
MR. I'ÍASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
MR. WALKER: iloín.
THE WITNESS: I don't have any exPerience
administratively in administer being an administrator over
an IA Unít. The coÍìmon trend ís there always ís a cac¡e25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 15 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Gouñ Reporters602.264.2230
L0
L2
L3
L4
15
16
L7
1_8
L9
20
2L
1L
22
23
24
8L
to that a chief depuÈy at the toP, a sworn offícial -- I
donrt know if Arpaiorg sworn or not, but I know thaÈ
Chíef Sherídan ís. I think it's a tough situatíon for the
person the next level down in his hís command is has to
make a decísion on a víolation of policy agaínst him.
BY MR. YOUNG:
A. Do you know why Chief Sheridan was a príncipal in
the 543?
MR. I'ÍASTERSON: FoundatÍon.
MR. WALKER: ,JOiN.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. Well, díd you ever have any discussÍon wit'h anyone
about whether or noÈ Chief SherÍdan should be a príncipal in
the 543?
A. I thÍnk it was obvíous Èhat he should be.
A. Díd you have any discussion or input ínto the issue
of whether Chief Olson should be the person makíng the final
fÍndings?
A. After ApríI L6th, I donrt had no ídea where
this was going.
A. okay.
A. I I knew that Olson was goíng Eo have to do it'.
That wasn'! my decisíon. I didn't have any etandíng. I
didn't have a say. ThaÈ was not part of my retentíon.
A. When díd you find out, that Chief Olson would be the25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 16 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September '14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
L0
L2
1"L
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
9L
THE WITNESS¡ That's what I thoughÈ you vrere
askíng.
I don't know whaÈ, their motívatíon was, but I
know that I did an independent ínvestigation.
BY MR. YOIING:
a. Knowíng what you know now about Èhe outcome of t,he
ínvestÍgation, do you have any reason t,o think that in any
way you were being used so thaL the MCSO could porÈray it'se1f
as capable of investigatíng it,self?
MR. IIÍ,ASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
THE WITNESS: That I donrt know.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. You don't know one way or the oLher?
MR. IIIASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
THE WITNESS: I don'È. I don't know what
happened to this once it left my my pen, 8o I don't
have I don't have the ínformation to make that
deÈermination.
BY MR. YOI]NG:
A. Díd you ever feel Èhat anyone at MCSO reaIly did
not want to find out or did not want you to fÍnd out the
reason for the violatíon of the preliminary injunetion?
MR. IvIASTERSON: Form. Foundation.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Are you askíng íf I
ever met any resistance in the investígatíon or25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 17 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
1_0
LL
L2
L3
T4
L5
L6
L7
L8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
92
BY MR. YOIING:
A. WelI, let'g start with t,hat. Did you ever meet any
resistance?
MR. MASTERSON: Form.
THE WITNESS: I didn't. Irm not lrm not
I don' t have the knowledge and t,he IT background thaÈ
certainly you have or t,hat Mr. McAndrews had, who did some
work here, but it, seemed Èhat thaÈ moved preÈty slow.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. This is the attenpt to find Ëhe met,adata on the
December 23, 20LL, e-maÍl?
A. Yes.
A. Okay. Can you elaborate on why you thought it went'
slow1y.
MR. I'ÍASTERSON: FoundaÈíon.
THE WITNESS: I think Mr. Mr. McAndrews'
report speaks for my opiníon ís based on on his
documentaÈion that's included in here.
BY MR. YOI]NG:
A. Did you just run out of time to pursue that' issue?
Is that what happened?
A. The next step ín that ínvestÍgation in Lhe
retrieval of the metadata would have been to contact a
Èhird-party outsíde vendor at the proposed cost of $30,000 to
take the next step to whatever Ít is thaÈ had to happen,
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 18 of 21
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Court Repoñers602.264.2230
1_0
L2
t_ 1_
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
1_9
20
2L
22
23
24
96
THE WITNESS: In my mínd, I canrt marry t,he
results of these two investigatíons wíÈh Ehe entíre operation
of Ehat dívísion. Irve never visitedr 1rou know, went through
the process there, looked at cases to see how they're being
handled. Irve never done any of thaÈ.
So I I canrÈ say that my opínion on Èhese
Èwo, 42 and 43, are a good represenÈatíon of gíve me
enough ínformation Èo form an opinion on a whole unít and
their daily operations. f don't know.
BY MR. YOT}NG:
A. The whole unít you're referring to is what?
A. IA.
A. Okay. Wellr }¡ou'd be concerned íf every IA
investigation ended up t,he way the 542 and 543 did; right?
MR. I'IASTERSON: Form, FoundatÍon.
MR. WALKER: ..Toin.
THE WITNESS: I can't thaÈ that's not
thatrg not a great quesÈíon, Èo be honest with you. If every
ínvestigatíon I È,hínk Lhat every investigation would need
to be looked at on its face and reviewed, because jusÈ
because somebody's investígated and nothing happens to Èhem,
like happened in 543, Èhat's not a process.
So I I think that just because there's an
invesÈigatíon doesn't mean somebody's got to be charged with
something and found guilty. It means that Èhere's an25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 19 of 21
l_
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
Griffin & Associates Gourt Reporters602.264.2230
L0
L2
L4
1,L
L3
1_5
16
L7
L8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
97
ínvestigaEíon. So I I don't know. I can only make a
determínation of 42 and 43. The other oneg I haven't looked
at. I donrt know.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. Okay. You think somethíng should have happened Eo
somebody as a result of the 543 ínvestigatíon; correct?
MR. IIÍASTERSON: Form.
THE WITNESS: Based on Èhe based on the
information t,hat,rs contained in my report, yê8, I do.
BY MR. YOI'NG:
A. And whaÈ you said earlier about Ëhe findíngs that
are in the charging sheets, those are things that as a resulÈ
of what you díd and heard, those are allegations Èhat
you've you thought ought, to be sustained on the basis of
some i:esultr is that ríght,?
MR. I'IASTERSON: Form.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. YOIING:
A. When you suggested that t,he MCSO assenble a band of
people outside iÈself --
A. A board.
A. Ëo handle
A. A board of people.
A. A board of people. I'm sorry. A board. Yes. Irm
having trouble reading my handwrít,ing. Let me start over25
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 20 of 21
Don Vogel - September 14,2015
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
1_0
L2
LL
13
L4
1-5
16
L7
L8
19
20
22
2L
23
24
Griffin & Associates Court Reporters602.264.2230
2LL
STATE OF ARIZONAas.
COUil¡TY OF MARICOPA,
BE IT KNOWN that the foregoing proceedings weretaken before me; that the witness before testifying was dulysworn by me t,o testífy !o the whole truth; that the foregoíngpages are a fuII, true, and accurate record of theproceedings, all done to the best of my skill and ability;t,hat the proceedings were taken down by me in shorthand andthereafter reduced to print under my direction.
I CERTIFY that I am in no way relaÈed to any of theparties hereto, nor am I ín any way interested ín the outcomehereof.
txl Revíew and signaÈure was requested.
I I Review and signature was waived.
t I Review and signature not requíred.
I CERTIFY that I have complied with the ethicalobligatíons seË forth in ACrIA 7'206 (F') (3) and AC,IA 7-206J(1) (g) (1) and (2) .
Dated at Phoeníx, Arizona, this 15th day ofSeptember, 2015.
CATHY iT . TAYLOR, RPRCertified Reporter
Certif Ícate No. 501,LL
* * * * *
I CERTIFY that GRIFFIN 6c ASSOCIATES, L'LC, has
complíed with the ethíca1 obligatíons set forth in AC.IA
7 -206 (J) (1) (g) (1) through (6) .
GRIFFIN & ASSOCIATES, LLCRegisÈered Reporting Firm
Arizona RRF No. R100525
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 1386-1 Filed 09/23/15 Page 21 of 21
Top Related