Melendres # 1386 Arpaio Motion Re Vogel

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


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


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


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


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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9


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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

Mike Of son - September 17,2015


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



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


EXHIBIT B


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


L

z

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

Don Vogel - September 14,2015


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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9



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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


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


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

Don Vogel - September '14,2015


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


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



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,


L

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9


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


l_

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9


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



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


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


Documents

Melendres # 1386 Arpaio Motion Re Vogel