Arpaio Motion for Defense Lawyer

8/10/2019 Arpaio Motion for Defense Lawyer

1/30

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]

WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERYMARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEYBy Thomas P. Liddy

State Bar No. 019384Deputy County AttorneyMCAO Firm No. [email protected]

CIVIL SERVICES DIVISIONSecurity Center Building

222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100Phoenix, Arizona 85004Telephone (602) 506-8541

Attorneys for Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio andMaricopa County Sheriffs 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

DEFENDANT JOSEPH M.ARPAIO AND MARICOPACOUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICESMOTION FOR DETERMINATIONOF COUNSEL

Pursuant to Rule 7(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants Sheriff

Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office (Defendants), move for a

determination of counsel for the Court ordered December 4, 2014 hearing (Doc.

795) later revised by the Court (Doc. 797). Defendants support their Motion with the

attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities.

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/30

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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. BACKGROUND

At the November 20, 2014 hearing, this Court indicated its willingness to

pursue civil and/or criminal contempt against Sheriff Arpaio, the Maricopa County

Sheriffs Office, and/or the MCSOs members in connection with implementing the

Courts Orders. The Court further scheduled the December 4, 2014 hearing to

investigate the matter. (Docs. 795 and 797).

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Scope of Representation

As a basis for the December 4, 2014 evidentiary hearing, the Court mentioned

both civil and criminal contempt at the November 20, 2014 hearing. The Court

issued its Order regarding the hearing (Doc. 795) and then modified the Order,

specifically requesting that a representative of the United States Attorneys Office

attend. (Doc. 797).

Should the Court pursue criminal contempt or a criminal investigation, Sheriff

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and the MCSO members are entitled

to criminal defense counsel. Undersigned counsel was retained through the

Maricopa County Attorney, William Montgomery for civil representation only.

Arizona Revised Statutes define Mr. Montgomerys powers and duties. A.R.S

11-532. Mr. Montgomerys powers and duties include, inter alia, being the public

prosecutor for criminal proceedings and providing civil legal services to county

employees and agencies. (See A.R.S. 11-532 attached as Exhibit 1). Mr.



3/30

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Montgomery does not have the power to defend a criminal investigation or criminal

contempt. Because Mr. Montgomery does not have this authority, likewise

undersigned counsel does not have this power. Undersigned counsel was retained

as lead counsel in this matter on November 21, 2014. (See attached Exhibit 2).

The representation powers and duties are set forth in the agreement between

Maricopa County and Iafrate & Associates. (See attached Exhibit 3). These powers

and duties likewise do not include the ability to defend clients in criminal contempt

proceedings or criminal investigations.

If the Court intends to pursue criminal contempt proceedings or a criminal

investigation, the individuals should receive full constitutional protections. See Hicks

v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632 (1988). These protections include:

The right to be advised of the charges the right to a disinterestedprosecutor, the right to assistance of counsel, a presumption ofinnocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the privilege against

self-incrimination, the right to cross-examine witnesses, theopportunity to present a defense and call witnesses, and the right toa jury trial if the fine or sentence imposed will be serious.

F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th

Cir. 2001)(emphasis added). Because undersigned counsel cannot assist Sheriff

Arpaio, the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, and the MCSO members, the Court

should make a determination as to counsel prior to the December 4, 2014 hearing.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /



4/30

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriffs

Office respectfully request the Court to make a determination as to counsel prior to

the December 4, 2014 hearing.

DATEDthis 1st

IAFRATE & ASSOCIATES

day of December, 2014

By:

Michele M. Iafrate

s/Michele M. Iafrate

Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.Arpaio and Maricopa County SheriffsOffice

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEYCIVIL SERVICES DIVISION

By: Thomas P. Liddys/Thomas P. Liddy (w/permission)

Attorney for Defendants Joseph M.Arpaio and Maricopa County SheriffsOffice

ORIGINALof the foregoing e-filedthis 1st

day of December, with:

Clerk of the CourtUnited States District CourtSandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse401 W. Washington Street, Suite 130, SPC 1Phoenix, Arizona 85003

COPIES of the foregoing e-mailed/and or mailedthis 1st day of December, to:



5/30

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Honorable G. Murray SnowUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse401 W. Washington St., Ste. 622, SPC 80Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Stanley YoungCovington & Burling333 Twin Dolphin RoadRedwood Shores, California 94065

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Daniel J. PochodaACLU Foundation of Arizona3707 North 7thStreet, Ste. 235

Phoenix, Arizona 85014Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Cecillia WangACLU Immigrants Rights Project39 Drumm StreetSan Francisco, California 94111


Andre Segura

ACLU Immigrants Rights Project125 Broad Street, 18thFloorNew York, New York 10004


Anne LaiUniversity of CaliforniaIrvine School of Law-Immigrant Rights Clinic401 E. Peltason Drive, Ste. 3500Irvine, California 92616


Jorge M. CastilloMALDEF634 S. Spring Street, 11

thFloor

Los Angeles, California 90014Attorneys for Plaintiffs

By: s/Jill Lafornara



6/30

Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 806-1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 24


7/30



8/30



9/30



10/30



11/30



12/30



13/30



14/30



15/30



16/30



17/30



18/30



19/30



20/30



21/30



22/30



23/30



24/30



25/30



26/30



27/30



28/30



29/30



30/30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

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

ORDER

This Court having considered Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa

County Sheriffs Offices Motion for Determination of Counsel and good cause

appearing;

IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County

Sheriffs Offices Motion for Determination of Counsel.


Documents

Arpaio Motion for Defense Lawyer