I · 1 was to ask who we were and what the purpose of the checkpoint was. I told him why we 2 were there, that it was a sobriety checkpoint, valid driver's license and registration

1 GUST ROSENFELD P.L.C.One S. Church Ave., Suite 1900

2 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1627(520) 628-7070

3 RogerW. Frazier-12146

4

5Attorneys for Defendants Ford, O'Dell, Traviolia, and Saunders

6IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8 Terrence Bressi,

9 I ..P aIntIff, No. CV-04-264-TUC-JMR

10vs.

11Michael Ford; Eric O'Dell; George Traviolia; RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S NON-

12 Richard Saunders; and the United States of UNIFORM INTERROGATORIES TO

13 America, DEFENDANTS

, 14 Defendants.

15

16 Defendants Michael Ford, Eric O'Dell, George Traviolia and Richard Saunders,

17 pursuant to F .R.C.P. 33 hereby respond to the Plaintiffs Non-Unifonn Interrogatories to

18 Defendants, which Plaintiff served February 14,2005.

19 NON-UNIFORM INTERROGATORIES

20 1. Please state in your own words how the incident which is the basis of this

21 lawsuit occurred. In your answer, please describe the operations of the roadblock that is the

22 basis of this lawsuit.

23 FORD: This involved a checkpoint for sobriety, driver's licenses and

24 registrations. It was operated by the Tohono O'odham Police Department by officers

25 employed by that department, and rangers of the Nation. If undocumented immigrants

26 or narcotics were discovered, as they may be during any routine traffic stop, the U.S.

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -1-

1 Border Patrol or U.S. Customs would be contacted to respond to those occurrences, but

2 those agencies were not operating the checkpoint.

3 This checkpoint was begun in the mid to late afternoon on December 20,

4 2002. I was requested by my immediate supervisor, Capt. Joseph Delgado, to organize

5 and conduct the checkpoint. I prepared a memorandum of officers who were to attend

6 and work at the checkpoint, and a briefing sheet (memorandum of the plan of operation).

7 The plan was approved for me by Capt. Delgado. This particular checkpoint was held at

8 or near mile post 143 on state route 86 within the boundaries of the Nation. The purpose

9 of the checkpoint was to check sobriety of drivers to reduce the incidents of impaired

10 driving on the reservation, and also to check for drivers licenses and registrations. I also

11 often made visual observances would be made whether seatbelts were being used, but this

12 wasn't a specified purpose for the checkpoint as I recall.

13 If the drivers were tribal members, they would be cited into tribal court for

14 violations of any traffic or DUI laws. If the drivers were determined to be non-members,

15 and were determined to have violated Arizona state law, they would be cited for the

16 appropriate violation into Pima County Justice Court at Ajo, Arizona.

17 The plan of operation was to stop every car in each direction on the

18 highway. The only deviations from this were if traffic got backed up to create an unsafe

19 situation in light of curves on the highway, or if tribal members had just been through the

20 checkpoint a short time before. For example, if a member had been through a checkpoint

21 in one direction and had been cleared and his drivers license checked, and then he

22 traveled a short distance only to take care of whatever was his business and then turn

23 around and go the opposite direction, he was permitted to proceed, as long as it was

24 within a very short time after the stop.

25 When Mr. Bressi arrived at the checkpoint, I was one of the officers

26 standing in the area, and I asked Mr. Bressi for his license and registration. His response

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -2-

1 was to ask who we were and what the purpose of the checkpoint was. I told him why we

2 were there, that it was a sobriety checkpoint, valid driver's license and registration check

3 and I asked him the same questions as everybody else that came through. He asked

4 specifically if we had any reason to believe that he as an individual had done anything

5 wrong. I told him we did not. His response was that he felt in that case that he did not

6 need to comply with us in any way and did not even need to show his driver's license. We

7 discussed whether he had to present his driver's license. We continued to talk but he

8 refused to identify himself. I told him that if he presented his drivers license, which was

9 not his own personal property but the property of the state, it would in no way diminish

10 his appeal as to whether he thought the checkpoint was valid or not. He refused to

11 cooperate or comply with any of my instructions. He then just said flat out that he was

12 refusing. He asked if he was detained or if he could leave, and my response was he could

13 not leave until he provided the information we were asking for. This entire conversation

14 probably lasted less than a minute, but traffic was beginning to back up behind Mr.

15 Bressi's vehicle. I requested Detective Traviolia of the TOPD to assist me, because traffic

16 was backing up and Mr. Bressi was engaged in a lengthy conversation and I had to deal

17 with other issues ongoing. Also, a minor accident occurred which was something that had

18 to be addressed immediately.

19 Mter Detective Traviolia came over, I was beyond earshot for a while,

20 taking care of other matters. I noticed that there were a number of officers standing

21 around the car, so I came back over to the area and Mr. Bressi was in the car and had

22 gone silent, mute. He sat quietly, seeming to be unresponsive to what Detective Traviolia

23 was telling him. A Mr. Dreeland, a customs agent, also came over to ask what was going

24 on, but Mr. Bressi refused to speak. I became aware that the door was opened, Mr. Bressi

25 was removed from the vehicle, placed on the ground, handcuffed and taken to the side of

26 the road. His identification was checked and his driver's license was run through a

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -3-

1 computer check. It was determined that he had a valid drivers license and no warrants.

2 Documentation was found and also provided by Mr. Bressi, as to who Mr. Bressi's

3 supervisor was, since he was driving a government vehicle. The supervisor was called and

4 another gentleman came out with Mr. Bressi's supervisor to recover the vehicle.

5 At some point after Mr. Bressi was taken into custody, I told him that he

6 could sign the citation without giving up his cause, and go on about his business and not

7 have to go to jail. If he preferred to go to jail he would have to wait for one of our officers

8 to transport him to Ajo, to book him into Ajo jail, be seen by a judge the next day, and

9 then make his own arrangements to get home from Ajo. I did not think he needed to be

10 subjected to that. We could have towed the vehicle, but we made an effort to make sure

11 the supervisor could come out and get it and bring someone who could give Mr. Bressi a

12 ride if he changed his mind. After they arrived, Mr. Bressi relented, signed the citation

13 and left with his supervisor and associate.

14 TRA VIOLIA: I had been a member of the Tohono O'Odham Police

15 Department for approximately three and a half years as of the time of the sobriety

16 checkpoint on December 20, 2002. I held the position of detective for two years up to and

17 prior to that night, and continue to hold that position today. I was asked to help with the

18 checkpoint of that day on state highway 86.

19 I was briefed on when and where to show up and what the checkpoint

20 would be for. This information was contained in a briefing memorandum of the

21 operation prepared by the lieutenant in charge. I received a copy and read it beforehand.

22 I was not required to, and did not keep, a copy of it of the operational plan memorandum

23 after the event.

24 The cause for the checkpoint for that day was to check for licenses and

25 registrations and to determine whether the drivers were intoxicated. The primary

26 purpose of the checkpoint was not to check for drugs or undocumented aliens. However,

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -4-

1 if those were discovered, just as they could be discovered after a routine stop for a traffic

2 violation, a United States Custom Service of U.S. Border Patrol would be called to deal

3 with those persons. All drivers in both directions on the highway were required to stop

4 by virtue of stop signs placed on the roadway. My best recall is that all cars stopped and

5 that the required checks of the drivers were made, except my recollection is that some

6 were waived through after traffic backed up. Although I did participate in actually

7 stopping vehicles during that checkpoint, I had not done so prior to Mr. Bressi's stop.

8 I was not involved in the initial stop of Mr. Bressi, nor did I hear the

9 conversation between Lt. Ford and Mr. Bressi. However, Lt. Ford called me over and

10 explained that he was having a problem with Mr. Bressi and asked whether I could help

11 and speak to Mr. Bressi. So I asked Mr. Bressi if he could show his license and he would

12 not. It did not appear to me that Mr. Bressi was intoxicated, but I also explained to him

13 that this was a license and registration checkpoint and that we needed to see his license

14 and registration, and that thereafter he could be on his way. He had become

15 argumentative about not showing his license, and I asked him to leave the vehicle, to step

16 out of the vehicle, and he refused that order also. Rather, he sat quietly, not even

17 responding verbally any further. I told him he was under arrest for failure to show his In

18 and obeying the police officer while directing traffic. During that time officer O'Dell had

19 come over to assist me. We removed Mr. Bressi physically from the vehicle and

20 handcuffed him. Mr. Bressi acted as a passive resister, not doing anything to impede or

21 actively resist us in removing him, but basically just going limp. Mr. Bressi refused to

22 walk and Officer O'Dell and I had to carry him. He was carried to the south side of the

23 highway and was seated on the ground.

24 After I took Mr. Bressi out of the vehicle, I took him over to the patrol

25 vehicle, patted him down, found his wallet, found his license, asked him if he had money

26 in it. He would not answer, so I took the money out, counted it out to him, showed it to

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -5-

1 him. I put his wallet back in his pocket, and wrote out a citation. I cited him for violation

2 of two state laws, because having checked his identification, I was satisfied that he was a

3 non-member of the Tohono O'Odham Nation or any other Indian tribe. I cited him into a

4 state court for violation of two state misdemeanor laws, A.R.S. § 28-1595(B) refusing to

5 provide identity or driver's license to officers and A.R.S. § 28-622(A) purposeful refusal to

6 cooperate with officer with authority to direct, control or regulate traffic. I gave him the

7 option to sign the citation, which was not an admission of the charges, but only an

8 agreement to appear in state justice court at a later date, and that he could then be on his

9 way, but he refused to sign the ticket, so we placed him in the back of the patrol car.

lOIn the meantime, an accident had occurred from the line of traffic, which

11 required the attention of a number of officers. Accordingly, there was some delay in

12 having sufficient personnel to transport Mr. Bressi to a jail. In the meantime, his

13 supervisor showed up and I discussed the situation with the supervisor. I explained to the

14 supervisor that Mr. Bressi was under arrest and that we were preparing to take him to a

15 jail in Ajo, but that it was a cite for a releasable offense and if he signed the ticket and

16 promised to show up on the court date, he would not have to go to jail. The supervisor

17 requested to speak to Mr. Bressi, after which the supervisor returned and said that Mr.

18 Bressi would sign the ticket. Thereafter, Mr. Bressi signed the ticket and was free to go

19 and indeed did leave with his supervisor.

20 O'DELL: At that time and presently I worked with the canine unit. I

21 received a phone call while off-duty requesting that I come out and assist. When I

22 arrived, Detective Romero told me that officers Traviolia and Ford needed assistance

23 with a vehicle which was still on the roadway. This vehicle was blocking east bound

24 traffic.

25 I went to the car and heard officer Traviolia requesting the driver to step

26 out of the vehicle. The driver was silent and refused to move. I also asked him to step

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -6-

lout, with the same response. I assisted officer Traviolia in pulling Mr. Bressi out of the

2 vehicle. He went limp and fell to the ground. We asked him to stand up and he refused.

3 He was removed from the roadway. His vehicle, a University of Arizona pick-up truck,

4 was removed from the roadway as well.

5 I went down the road after determining who Mr. Bressi's supervisor was,

6 called the supervisor and offered to either allow him to come out and retrieve the vehicle

7 or it would be towed. He requested that he come out and pick up the vehicle.

8 I was not involved in the planning or setting up of this checkpoint, nor did I

9 participate in stopping cars or questioning drivers.

10 SAUNDERS: On December 20, 2002, I was Acting Chief of Police of the

11 Tohono O'Odham Police Department. I had directed my officers to conduct a sobriety

12 checkpoint on state route 86 at or near milepost 143 within the boundaries of the Tohono

13 O'Odham Nation (Nation). I was not present at that checkpoint. I do not recall whether I

14 personally approved the operation plan for this particular checkpoint, or I left it to the

15 Acting Assistant Chief Joseph Delgado to do that. My officers are authorized by tribal

16 authority to patrol and make any lawful stops on state highway 86, and if a driver is

17 deemed to have violated a state law, my officers are authorized by virtue of their AZ-

18 POST certification to enforce Arizona law. However, until such an issue as to state law

19 becomes known, and which would require them to act pursuant to state law, the officers

20 were fully authorized by tribal authority to stop any and all drivers within the boundaries

21 of the Nation including state highway 86, and to conduct checkpoints for sobriety, drivers

22 licenses, registrations, and other issues related to safety. I was not present at the scene

23 and therefore was not a first-hand witness to the events that occurred while Mr. Bressi

24 was detained at the checkpoint.

25

26

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -7-

12. Please explain in detail what training (if any) you have for operating a

2 sobriety checkpoint. If a manual or other documentation is available, production of such

3 documentation may be used in part or in whole to answer this interrogatory.

4

5 FORD: I have had in-house training with the TOPD, including on the job

6 training and past participation in checkpoints on the reservation. There is no specific

7 written manual or other documentation available with regard to my training. I had

8 reviewed operational plans of other checkpoints prior to this one. Also, for general

9 background, I studied constitutional law, including the law regarding suspicionless

10 contacts in general, and road safety, during my study for the certification at the Northern

11 Arizona Regional Training held at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona. However, there

12 was no specific course at that time on sobriety checkpoints. Moreover, my handling of the

13 checkpoint on December 20, 2002 was based on all my training and tribal authority.

14 TRA VIOLIA: I have had in-house training with the TOPD, including on

15 the job training and past participation in checkpoints on the reservation. There is no

16 specific written manual or other documentation available with regard to my training. I

17 had reviewed operational plans of other checkpoints prior to this one. Also, for general

18 background, I studied constitutional law, including the law regarding suspicionless

19 contacts in general, and road safety, during my study for the certification at the Southern

20 Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center, which included general constitutional law on

21 searched and seizures as of that time. However, there was no specific course at that time

22 on sobriety checkpoints. Moreover, my handling of the checkpoint on December 20, 2002

23 was based on all my training and tribal authority.

24 O'DELL: I have had on the job training and past participation in

25 checkpoints on the reservation. I studied constitutional law during my study at Southern

26 Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center, which I completed in 1999. However, there

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -8-

1 is no specific course at that time on checkpoints, although there was a general study of

2 constitutional law. I had some training with DUls and field sobriety testing.

3 SAUNDERS: I have participated in similar checkpoints within the Nation.

4 Similar DUI sobriety checkpoints have been conducted at the location where the

5 checkpoint of December 20, 2002 was conducted, and various other roads within the

6 confines of the Nation. I was trained at the Arizona Law Enforcement Advisory Council

7 Training in Tucson in 1987. I had reviewed other TOPD operational plans. I was

8 familiar with the sign age that would be used at such checkpoints, and the methods of

9 stopping vehicles. It was my position that each and every vehicle would be stopped at

10 such checkpoint. Also, the TOPD maintains a copy of the 1989 opinion and order of the

11 Judicial Court of the Tohono O'Odham Nation, and the Tohono O'Odham Nation v. Ahill

12 and other consolidated cases, which authorizes the tribal police to conduct sobriety

13 checkpoints within the Nation under tribal authority.

14

15 3. Please explain the jurisdictional basis for operating a roadblock such as that

16 which is the basis of this lawsuit. Please cite all tribal law (statutory, case law, or otherwise),

17 which was in place on December 20, 2002, that allowed for the operation of a roadblock such

18 as the one operated on December 20, 2002.

19 The jurisdictional basis for operating the checkpoint on state highway 86

20 within the reservation starts with the sovereign immunity of the tribe, which has not been

21 waived on this issue. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978); Okla. Tax

22 Comm'n v. Citizen BankPotawatomilndian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991); S. Unique v.

23 Gila River Pima-Maricopa, 138 Ariz. 378,380, 764 P.2d 1367,1378 (App. 1983). See also

24 Ortiz-Barraza v. United States, 512 F.2d 1176 (9th Cir.1975): Indian tribes may employ

25 police officers to aid in the enforcement of tribal law and in the exercise of tribal power.

26 The Constitution of the Tohono O'odham Nation, adopted in 1986, states:

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -9-

1 "Article VI, Section 1: The Tohono O'odham Council shall have all of thelegislative powers vested in the Tohono O'odham Nation and shall, in

2 accordance with established customs of the Tohono O'odham Nation andsubject to the express limitations contained in this Constitution and the

3 laws of the United States, have the power:

4 ...(c) to exercise the inherent powers of the Tohono O'odham Nation byproviding laws, ordinances or resolutions:

5(6) to provide for the maintenance of law and order in the

6 administration of justice; to establish law enforcement agencies; to enactcriminal and civil laws governing the conduct of any person within the

7 Tohono O'odham Nation consistent with federal law;

8 (7) to provide for removal or exclusion from the Tohono O'odhamNation of non-members whose presence may be injurious to the peace,

9 health or welfare of the Tohono O'odham Nation; ...

10 Ordinance No. 97-02 of the Nation states as follows:

11 Section 1.3 Grounds for Removal and Exclusion Section A. Any non-member of the Tohono O'Odham Nation may be removed and excluded

12 pursuant to SectiQn 1.1(A) if he or she engages in any of the followingconduct:

13A.1. commits an act which is prohibited by Federal, State or Tribal Law,

14 including a violation of State or Tribal traffic regulations; ...

15 1.7(E). Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent a duly authorized policeofficer from stopping and detaining, without prior legal process from the

16 Tohono O'Odham Judicial Court, any non-member within the exteriorboundaries of the Tohono O'Odham Nation when the officer has reasonable

17 cause to believe that the non-member is committing or has committed anyoffense in violation of the Tohono O'Odham State or federal law, including

18 a traffic offense.

19 In Ortiz-Barraza, supra, the Ninth Circuit held that under similar authority, a tribal

20 officer acted within the scope of his tribal authority. Thus, a tribal police officer under

21 the Tohono O'odham Council Ordinance, and Tohono O'Odham Nation Constitution, as

22 under the previous Papago Council and Papago Constitution referred to in Ortiz-Barraza

23 may, through tribal authority, investigate anyon-reservation violation of state and

24 federal law, even on the right of way of state highway 86. Id. 512 F.2dat 1178 and 1180.

25 The United States Supreme Court has held that tribal police can patrol drivers within the

26 reservation, including on a right-of-way made part of a state highway, and to detain and

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -10-

1 turn over to state officers non-members stopped on the highway for conduct violating

2 state law. See Strate v. A-I Contractors, 520 V.S. 438, 456, N.11 (1997); State v. Schmuck,

3 121 Wash. 2d 273, 850 P.2d 1332 (1993). As the Schmuck and Ortiz-Barraza cases show,

4 officers may certainly do the investigation and detain a person prior to determining

5 whether they are a member or non-member, and after making that determination take

6 the appropriate action as the case thereafter requires. As those cases show, if a non-

7 member is determined to have violated state law, he may be detained and turned over to

8 the proper state authority for any prosecution or further action thereafter. This is

9 consistent with the ordinance provisions noted above in No. 97-02.

10 See also Opinion and Order dated October 23,1989, of the Judicial Court

11 of the Tohono O'Odham Nation, in Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ahill, et al. Case No. CRI2-

12 1762-88, and other consolidated cases. This opinion and order authorizes the tribal police

13 to conduct sobriety checkpoints within the Nation, under tribal authority.

14 Drunk driving is forbidden under Ordinance No. 51 of the Ordinance of the

15 Papago Council. This ordinance was in effect on December 20, 2002 and is followed and

16 applied by the tribe. Likewise, Section 66-152 and 152(B) require obedience to traffic

17 laws and police officers and Section 66-272 requires that a drivers license be carried and

18 exhibited on demand. Furthermore, 25 CFR Section 11.445(d) indicates that if a tribe has

19 not adopted a traffic code, the traffic code of the state where a reservation lies shall be

20 deemed to be at the tribe's code. Also, federal law precludes drunk driving on any Indian

21 reservation, see 18 V.S.C. § 7.3 and 18 V.S.C. § 13, and likewise adopts state criminal laws

22 as the federal law on the reservation.

23 Where the law of the state are deemed to be those of the tribal law, acting

24 pursuant to them is deemed acting under tribal law and not state law, E.F. ~ v. St.

25 Stephen's Indian High School, 264 F .3d 1297 (10th Cir. 2001).

26 The Fourth Amendment did not govern the checkpoint. R..l Williams

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -11-

1 Company v. Fort Belknap Housing Authority, 719 F .2d 979, 981-82 (9th Cir. 1983). Instead,

2 the search and seizure protections of the Indian Civil Rights Act under 25 U.S.C. §

3 1302(2) governed. United States Supreme Court cases applicable to the Fourth

4 Amendment would also provide the analysis under the Indian Civil Rights Act and

5 provides the authority that sobriety checkpoints may be conducted as suspicionless stops

6 without being unreasonable searches or seizures. See e.g., City of Indianapolis v. Edmon,

7 531 U.S. 32 (2000); Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

8 When it was determined that Bressi violated state laws, of which he was not

9 in violation prior to being stopped but only thereafter, and that he was a non-member of

10 the reservation, the tribal authority by itself would require at that time that the officers at

11 that point detain him and then turn him over to state officers for further processing. At

12 this point however, the officers had authority to enforce Arizona law pursuant to AZ-

13 POST certifications. See A.R.S. § 13-3874. So at such time that they needed any

14 authority beyond this tribal authority to cite a non-member for a violation of a state law,

15 their state certification provided the authority to do so. However, at all times they

16 remained employees of the TOPD, and were never employees or agents of Arizona.

17 J Jt>LDATED: this II day of March, 2005.

18GU

19

20 By

21Original of the foregoing hand delivered

22 this /,i!"day of March, 2005, to:

23 David J. Euchner7465 E. Broadway, Suite 201

24 Tucson, AZ 85710Attorney for Plaintiff

25

26 By:

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -12-

1VERIFICATION -Michael Ford

2STATE OF ARIZONA )

3 ) ss.County of Pima )

4

5 Michael Ford, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

6 1. I am one of the defendants in the above entitled action of Terence Bressi v.

7 Michael Ford et al., Case No. CV -04-264- TUC-JMR, in the United States District Court for the

8 District of Arizona.

9 2. I have read the non-uniform interrogatories served upon me by Plaintiff and

10the foregoing answers thereto.

113. The answers to such interrogatories following my name are true and correct

12to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and as to the answers provided by others, I

13

14 believe them to be true also.

15 Dated this ~ day of March, 2005.

16

1718 Mi

Swo to before me this J , T7t19 da f March, 2005 b MIChael Ford

20

21

22 . OFFICIAL SEAL CAROL A. BOWERS

23 NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA..PIMA COUNTY

24 My Comm. Exp. Oct. 20. 2006

25

26

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -13-

1 VERIFICATION -George Traviolia

2 STATE OF ARIZONA)) ss.

3 County of Pima )

4 George Traviolia, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


6Michael Ford et al., Case No. CV -04-264- TUC-JMR, in the United States District Court for the

7District of Arizona.

8


10 the foregoing answers thereto.

11 3. The answers to such interrogatories following my name are true and correct

12 to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and as to the answers provided by others, I


14 .1H-Dated this ~ day of March, 2005.

1516 ~- _/~?'--;:---::7~-- -

17 ~~~~~it~;~ ~

18 Sworn to before me this -1L!!:fda~ March, 2005 b George Traviolia

19

20

21 --::;8\1"" OFFICIAL SEAL

22 --CAROL A. BOWERS.NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA

23 4 I ..PIMA COUNTYMy Comm. Exp. Oct. 20. 2006

24

25

26

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -14-

1 VERIFICATION -Eric O'Dell

2 STATE OF ARIZONA )) ss.

3 County of Pima )

4 Eric O'Dell, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


6Michael Ford et al., Case No. CV -04-264- TUC-JMR, in the United States District Court for the


8






14 1TtDated this ~ day of March, 2005.

15

1 6 C~::::~= ){-- "'\1 7 E~o;fi~f~~~ ~ "" ,=-.J--- -

18 .

1119

20

21=--=" """22 '8"-C OFFICIAL SEAL

CAROL A. BOWERS23 ~ NOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA

~~~, PIMA COUNTY24 My Comm. Exp. Oct. 20. 2006

25

26

RWF:tcc 213519.1 -15-

1 VERIFICATION -Richard Saunders

2 STATE OF ARIZONA)) ss.

3 County of Pima )

4 Richard Saunders, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


6Michael Ford et al., Case No. CV-O4-264-TUC-JMR, in the United States District Court for the







14 Dated this LL. day of March, 2005.

15 ./7 // .4

1 6 ,~4~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~

17 Richard Saunders, Affiant

18 Sworn to before me this _L1!!"

da~~c~ ~5 ~char~ ~a~ders19 "t\.T~tl~2~f!f I-~~:::'~

20 Notary Public

21 ~, ---~. -O~~IC AL L

22 -CAROL A. BOWERSNOTARY PUBLIC-ARIZONA

23 "" PIMA COUNTYMy Comm. Exp.Oct. 20. 2006

24

25

26

RWF:tcc 213519.1 .16-

Documents

I · 1 was to ask who we were and what the purpose of the checkpoint was. I told him why we 2 were there, that it was a sobriety checkpoint, valid driver's license and registration