Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing

8/20/2019 Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing

1/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2712

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. CV 07-2513-PHX-GMS

Phoenix, Arizona

October 9, 2015

9:05 a.m.

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

(Evidentiary Hearing Day 12, Pages 2712-2962)

Court Reporter: Gary Moll

401 W. Washington Street, SPC #38

Phoenix, Arizona 85003(602) 322-7263

Proceedings taken by stenographic court reporterTranscript prepared by computer-aided transcription


2/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Melendres v. Arpaio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2713

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Plaintiffs:American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants' Rights ProjectBy: Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.39 Drumm Street

San Francisco, California 94111

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

Immigrants' Rights Project

By: Andre Segura, Esq.

125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10004

American Civil Liberties Union of ArizonaBy: Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.P.O. Box 17148

Phoenix, Arizona 85011

Covington & Burling, LLPBy: Tammy Albarran, Esq.

1 Front Street, 35th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Covington & Burling, LLP

By: Stanley Young, Esq.

By: Michelle L. Morin, Esq.333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700

Redwood Shores, California 94065

For the Defendant Maricopa County:

Walker & Peskind, PLLCBy: Richard K. Walker, Esq.

By: Charles W. Jirauch, Esq.SGA Corporate Center

16100 N. 7th Street, Suite 140


For the Movants Christine Stutz and Thomas P. Liddy:Broening, Oberg, Woods & Wilson, PC

By: Terrence P. Woods, Esq.

P.O. Box 20527Phoenix, Arizona 85036


3/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa CountySheriff's Office:

Iafrate & AssociatesBy: Michele M. Iafrate, Esq.649 N. 2nd Avenue


Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC

By: A. Melvin McDonald, Jr., Esq.

By: John T. Masterson, Esq.

By: Joseph T. Popolizio, Esq.2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 800Phoenix, Arizona 85012

For the Intervenor United States of America:U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

By: Paul Killebrew, Esq.950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 5th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20530

U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division

By: Cynthia Coe, Esq.601 D. Street NW, #5011Washington, D.C. 20004

For Executive Chief Brian Sands:Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP

By: Greg S. Como, Esq.2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1700


For Lieutenant Joseph Sousa:

David Eisenberg, PLCBy: David Eisenberg, Esq.

2702 N. 3rd Street, Suite 4003


Also present:Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio

Executive Chief Brian Sands

Chief Deputy Gerard SheridanLieutenant Joseph Sousa


4/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


I N D E X

Witness: Page

JOSEPH SOUSA

Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Popolizio 2979Cross-Examination by Mr. Como 2772Cross-Examination by Mr. Walker 2782

Redirect Examination by Ms. Wang 2788Examination by the Court 2798Recross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio 2801

DAVID TENNYSON

Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Segura 2804Direct Examination Continued by Mr. Segura 2888

TRAVIS ANGLIN

Direct Examination by Ms. Morin 2828Cross-Examination by Mr. Popolizio 2874

Examination by the Court 2887


5/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


E X H I B I T S

No. Description Admitted

2006 MCSO Memorandum from Sergeant Tennyson to 2818

Commander Bailey re HSU Criminal InquiryDated 8/28/2014 (MELC011163-MELC011165)

2007 E-mail from Keith Manning to David Tennyson re 2823Inquiry on HSU Criminal Inquiry dated 10/7/2014(MELC224940)

2025 MCSO Supplemental Report re DR 2014-009988 2943

(MELC140524)

2026 MCSO Supplemental Report re DR 2014-009988 2945

(MELC139207 - MELC139208)

2028 Interview with Sgt Baranyos by Sgt Tennyson 2917

(MELC226795-MELC226815)

2029 MCSO Internal Criminal Investigation, 2924Interview Det. Rick Lopez dated 7/15/2014

(MELC227797-MELC227812)

2030 Interview with Frank Gamboa by Sgt Tennyson 2830dated 7/8/2014 (MELC227265-MELC227271)

2079 Screen shots of text messages taken off 2838Travis Anglin's personal phone sent by Mike

Zullo (MELC199513-22)

2083 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin 2832

forwarding E-mail from Dennis Montgomeryto Mike Zullo with a subject line "Latest 1.5a"

dated 1/1/2014 (MELC199417)

2087 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Brian McDaniel 2833

copying Travis Anglin, forwarding E-mailfrom Mike Zullo to Dennis Montgomery with a

subject line "Rand Paul" dated 1/8/2014(MELC199540-43)


6/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


E X H I B I T S

No. Description Admitted

2095 E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and Dennis 2859

Montgomery with a subject line "Phone" dated1/8/2014 (MELC199626-28)

2096 E-mail from Mike Zullo to Travis Anglin with 2861the "Rand Paul" subject line (MELC199377-80)2097 E-mail chain between Mike Zullo and

Travis Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21)

2097 Email chain between Mike Zullo and Travis 2833Anglin dated 1/23/2014 (MELC199420-21)

2099 E-mail from Detective Brian Mackiewicz to 2867Travis Anglin with an E-mail chain attached,subject line "CIA" dated 7/17/2014

(MELC198244-45)

2540 E-mail from Joseph Sousa to Benjamin Armer 2765copying Russ Skinner FW: Scenarios for review

based on judge's order dated 1/13/2015

(MELC114949-54)

2841 Memorandum of Concern Regarding IA 014-295 2910

"Tennyson’s manifesto" (MELC1396962-

MELC13967030)

2849 Memorandum to G. Sheridan from D. Tennyson Re: 2899Theft of License Plates and Identification

(MELC1397097-MELC1397139)

2900A (MELC185239 - MELC185331) 2872


7/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Please be seated.

THE CLERK: Civil Case 07-2513, Manuel de Jesus

Ortega Melendres versus Joseph M. Arpaio and others. This is

the time set for continued evidentiary hearing.

Please announce your presence for the record.

MS. WANG: Good morning, Your Honor. Cecillia Wang

and Andre Segura of the ACLU for plaintiffs.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MS. MORIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Michelle Morin.

With me are Stan Young and Tammy Albarran of Covington &

Burling for plaintiffs.


MR. POCHODA: Good morning. Dan Pochoda, ACLU of

Arizona, for plaintiffs.


MR. KILLEBREW: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul

Killebrew, and Cynthia Coe will be joining us later, for the

United States.


MR. POPOLIZIO: Good morning, Your Honor. Joseph

Popolizio and John Masterson of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli for

Sheriff Arpaio, and with us is Holly McGee.



8/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


MR. WALKER: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Walker

on behalf of Maricopa County. And we might be joined later by

Mr. Jirauch.


MR. McDONALD: Good morning, Your Honor. Mel McDonald

making a special appearance for Sheriff Joe Arpaio.


MR. COMO: Good morning, Your Honor. Greg Como of

Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, representing Brian Sands.


MR. WOODS: Good morning, Your Honor. Terry Woods for

that nonparties Stutz and Liddy.


MS. IAFRATE: Good morning, Your Honor. Michele

Iafrate on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio and the alleged unnamed

contemnors.


MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. David

Eisenberg specially appearing on behalf of Lieutenant Sousa.


I have received overnight sometime the designation of

your witnesses. It's still not what I wanted. I want a single

document. So can you transmit it to plaintiffs, and then

plaintiffs, if you want to submit it back to me.

And I would also like for you to chart out scheduling,


9/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


and we can deal with final discovery disputes if you don't have

all the discovery you've requested, plaintiffs, as soon as I

get that document. I assume it will be Tuesday morning.

I don't mind, however, giving some reactions to see if

you can work things out to the extent I have reviewed

plaintiffs' supplemental. I mean, it seems to me that with

respect to witnesses who have not yet testified, I would hope

that we could combine their testimony. If you'll let me know

that you're doing that, I'll give you more leeway. But I don't

see why -- you're not going to call Fax any more, plaintiffs?

MS. WANG: No, we do not currently plan to, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right. But you are going to call

Bailey? Are you calling Liddy?

MS. WANG: We are not.

THE COURT: Okay. But you are calling Bailey?

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You're calling Olson?

MS. WANG: Yes.

THE COURT: You're calling Zullo?

MS. WANG: Yes, contingent on -- he has not yet been

deposed, but we currently do plan to call him.

THE COURT: You're calling Mackiewicz?

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor. By the way, on Mackiewicz

we need to revise our time estimate based on the deposition,


10/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:0


which has happened in the interim since we drafted this. We

would revise that estimate upward to two hours.

THE COURT: All right. Well, it does seem to me that

we ought to make every effort to combine where possible. Of

course, you have the right to call your case if you want, call

them in your case, but I would think it would be courteous to

your clients, and also to all participants, if it makes sense

to combine the testimony, let -- to do that.

As I said, I'll give you a lot of leeway on cross,

'cause I'll deal with it as it is your -- as if it is your

direct as well as your cross if -- if you feel like you can do

that without harming your case.

If in fact you proceed and call them separately, let

me give you my reactions at least. You want Chief Deputy

Sheridan to have three additional hours to testify about a

number of things pertaining to ethical and legal standards,

Internal Affairs investigations, the Charley Armendariz

investigation. I can see that. I mean, Chief Deputy Sheridan

has been involved in a lot of stuff. And I do think that a

fair amount of this was covered in his already several days of

testimony, and I don't intend to let you retrack over what he's

already say.

I've already got the time hours that he estimated in

terms of what it took to review the videotapes in the

Armendariz investigation. I'm not inclined to let you go into


11/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:0

09:0

09:0

09:1

09:1


that. But it does seem to me that he has played, and his

testimony is that he's played a major role in all those things,

and I'll allow him to testify and I'll give you up to three

hours.

I will tell you, though, that you list training

provided by the United States for MCSO deputies in the 287(g)

program. I don't think I'm going to let you get into that. I

don't know that it's relevant. If you can convince me it is, I

might give you a few questions, but I don't think we're going

to go into that in any detail.

Tom Liddy, in terms of gathering the video evidence, I

mean, you only asked for an hour. I think that's more than

you'll need, but I don't think it's an unreasonable request so

I'm inclined to give you an hour if that's what you'd like.

Bailey, also, of course, was involved, and has been

involved in the investigations. I would hope that we could, as

I said, combine his testimony. I don't intend to have him --

if I let Chief Deputy Sheridan testify for three hours on, you

know, general procedures and what they've done, I don't intend

to let Bailey track through all of that in exhaustive detail

all over again. And so I'd rather not give him two hours, I'd

rather do something like an hour and a half, although if you

use your time wisely, I'll give you up to two hours on Bailey

if you recall him.

Olson, I mean, I really think Olson's somebody we


12/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


should be able to combine. If you tell me otherwise, you

haven't asked for too much time, I'll give you an hour.

Fax. It seems to me that Fax, to the extent he was

involved in individual investigations that plaintiff is

bringing up ought to be able to discuss those individual

investigations. But to the extent you're going to discuss

overall effort, I'm not -- and I allow Bailey and Sheridan to

testify to those things, I'm not going to allow Fax to retrack

through all that.

You've asked for four hours. I can't see that it will

take four hours; I'll give you three. And then if you need

four, you can have four, if I think you've used it wisely, and

if I don't, I'm not going to give you any more than three.

And again, I'm not going to allow Fax to merely

retrack through what I'm already going to allow Sheridan and

Bailey to track through, because as I said yesterday, I've read

all the monitor's reports. I know what the efforts are. The

monitor, I think, has given praise where praise was due, and

clearly, in some areas you are due some praise and in others

areas your clients are not.

I have no idea why Stephanie Molina's going to testify

at all. She was only appointed to be chief of -- or the

captain over the Internal Affairs Division, by Chief Deputy

Sheridan's testimony, two or three weeks ago. And so unless

you can tell me why she should be allowed to testify, I'm not


13/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


inclined to allow her to do it.

Captain Russ Skinner, I don't know, my monitor has

never said anything other than that Captain Skinner has been

exemplary, and -- in his efforts to comply and in his efforts

to contact with the monitor. And I think that in light of the

fact that my monitor has said that, Captain Skinner is entitled

to time to testify, but I'm not going to give him three hours

and Farnsworth three hours. Farnsworth hasn't been on this

case, as far as I know, for more than a year. I think he was

removed about the same time that -- I don't really remember, to

be truthful. But I think he was removed, wasn't he, right

about the same time that Bailey was put in charge of PSB? I

can't see allowing Farnsworth to testify at all, unless you can

tell me something he can say that hasn't -- won't have already

been completely covered by Skinner, by Bailey, and by Sheridan.

So I will listen if you're going to tell me, but

I'm -- we can cut way down on Farnsworth and Skinner. In light

of the fact that Skinner has been exemplary, and my monitor's

never said anything to the contrary, I'm inclined to give you a

little bit more time with Skinner, if you want to establish a

case for compliance, than an hour. But again, I'm not

contesting -- I have no basis to contest, based on what my

monitor's said, that Skinner has not been other than exemplary,

and for that reason I'll give him an hour and a half, but I'm

not sure you need more.


14/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


Those are my reactions. But as I said, I would just

as soon, if we can combine these, the ones that we combine, we

can combine, and we move quickly through the rest of them.

Any response to any of that?

MR. MASTERSON: No, not really, Judge. And I just

want to let you know that we will do our best to combine, if

possible, and not recall people, if we can do that and not

sacrifice a portion of our case.

THE COURT: Yeah, I understand that you are entitled

to present your case. But I would appreciate it if you can

combine them, without affecting your case, that you do that.

MR. MASTERSON: And so for everybody's convenience,

the Court, plaintiffs' counsel, and certainly the witness,

him- or herself, we will do our best to combine if we can.

And then I've made notes concerning your comments on

the other witnesses, and we'll do our best to reconsider in

certain situations and possibly pull a couple off that list.

THE COURT: All right. As for Sheriff Arpaio, you

really want 90 minutes? If I'm going to allow, you know,

Sheridan his full three and Bailey the two, do you want 90

minutes for Sheriff Arpaio?

MR. MASTERSON: If Chief Sheridan takes his three and

Captain Bailey takes his two, unless the sheriff's feeling

particularly talkative, I don't think he's going to take as

much time as we anticipate when we put that time -- time limit


15/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


down.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I am going to reserve

the right, even though I'm giving you time with all of them, if

we're just tracking over what we've had before, I don't see the

point.

Again, I have read the monitor's reports and they are

going to be most persuasive with me. But I do believe that

your point of yesterday is correct. Since I'm looking at the

attitude of the sheriff's department in responding to my

orders, I think you are entitled to put on some of the work

that you've done that underlies the monitor's report, and I

will allow a reasonable amount of time to do that, but I'm not

going to allow excessive time.

MR. MASTERSON: Understood, Judge, and we'll try our

best to avoid any redundancy.

THE COURT: All right, thank you.

Are we ready then to --

Oh, you have another matters?

MS. WANG: I apologize, Your Honor. Just a couple of

points. Plaintiffs would object, to the extent defendants

would have witnesses who have already testified, rehash ground

that's already been covered in examinations.

THE COURT: Let me just say that if you make that

object- -- if I allow them to testify and you make that

objection, I'm going to be sympathetic to it if I've heard it


16/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1


before. But for the reasons I've indicated to Mr. Masterson, I

think they're entitled to have their say on at least underlying

efforts.


One other point is that we, as I said yesterday, have

not had a chance to depose Deputy Garcia yet, and so we may

call him as well, depending on the outcome of that deposition.

THE COURT: All right. Well, can you -- can you both

combine these documents? Can you talk about -- the other thing

I'd like you to do is talk about scheduling days so that we can

coordinate witnesses for the rest of the time we have

available, so that you know what days you're going to have, and

I have to know what days I'm going to have.

I mean, I know that you all have other cases. You

have maybe 16 or 17 other cases you're working on. I have 500.

May not be quite that many, but it's a lot of cases. I really

do need my time.

MS. WANG: Yes, Your Honor, we can do that.

THE COURT: And I need to know what I'm going to have.

So I would appreciate it if when you work that out,

and I realize defendants want to reserve the right in light

ofyour reservation right, I get all that, and I understand

there's been unusual circumstances, but I still think you need

to work out a schedule in light of what I've suggested I'm

going to give, and then let's move with that. Okay?


17/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1



MR. COMO: Your Honor, while we're talking about

scheduling, I did want to notify the Court that my last day

with our law firm is October 30th. So we're going to be

transitioning another partner to take over if the hearing is

still going beyond that date, but I do --

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COMO: -- want to alert the Court of that.

THE COURT: Have you identified who that partner is?

MR. COMO: Craig Murdy is --

THE COURT: All right. And he's already been

involved.

MR. COMO: Yes, he has, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, as I've said before,

congratulations to you, Mr. Como, and --

MR. COMO: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- I hope the bench will be all that you

hope it will be.

MR. COMO: I hope so, too, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You ready to resume, Mr. Popolizio?

MR. POPOLIZIO: I am, Your Honor.



18/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearing 2729

JOSEPH SOUSA,

recalled as a witness herein, having been previously duly

sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Lieutenant Sousa.

A. Good morning, sir.

Q. I hear there's a little frog in your throat, is that

correct?

A. Ugh, either the flu or allergies.

Q. Breathe over to that side, that wall.

THE COURT: That's what you get for breaking our

chair.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Lieutenant, when there is an important issue such as a

preliminary injunction being issued, is there a protocol to

follow at MCSO with regard to briefing deputies in your

command?

A. Back in 2011, the protocol at the MCSO was commanders would

brief sergeants during staff meetings, sergeants would brief

the deputies.

Q. Okay. And did you follow this protocol with regard to the

preliminary injunction issued in this case?


19/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:1

09:2


A. It was my normal routine to brief my sergeants, but I don't

have -- it's been three -- over three and a half years. I

can't remember it specifically. I can't remember any of my

briefings three and a half years ago.

Q. Well, did you discuss the preliminary injunction with

Sergeant Palmer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many sergeants did you have at HSU at the time the

preliminary injunction was issued?

A. Two.

Q. And who was the other besides Sergeant Palmer?

A. Sergeant Trowbridge.

Q. And did you brief both sergeants with regard to the

preliminary injunction?

A. Sergeant Trowbridge was copied on the e-mail string that

Sergeant Palmer sent me with the scenarios.

Q. Would you also have staff meetings while you were at HSU?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember if you had a staff meeting shortly after

the issuance of the preliminary injunction?

A. That would have been my normal routine, to have staff

meetings.

Q. Okay. Do you remember addressing the preliminary

injunction at a staff meeting at HSU?

A. I can't remember anything from three years ago at


20/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


briefings, sir.

Q. You could have, but you just don't recall.

A. Correct, I -- it's been over three years.

Q. Do you know if --

THE COURT: Lieutenant, can I interrupt?

Who attends staff meetings?

THE WITNESS: My sergeants, sir.

THE COURT: Just you and your sergeants?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Now, I think you said command briefs sergeants, who brief

the deputies, is that right?

A. Back then, that was the routine.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Sergeant Palmer briefed HSU deputies

regarding the preliminary injunction?

A. Based on sitting in this courtroom in April, that's what

Sergeant Palmer testified, that he did training with the HSU

deputies.

Q. And the training would be on the preliminary injunction?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you been here for every day of this hearing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Again, were you here for all of Mr. Casey's testimony

during this hearing?


21/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you listen to all of his testimony?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Casey testifying something to the effect

that HSU personnel were happy when the preliminary injunction

was issued?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. First, did you personally express to Mr. Casey that you

were happy that the preliminary injunction issued?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know if any of the deputies under your command at

HSU expressed to Mr. Casey that they were happy that the

preliminary injunction issued?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Do you recall during your tenure at HSU if your men were

happy about something that affected the way they enforced

immigration law?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what do you recall the deputies being happy about?

A. In 2009, when we lost the 287(g) program, internally at HSU

we were actually happy about it, 'cause it lessened our

administrative duties.

Q. And what did lessen your -- what does lessen your

investigative duties mean?

A. I no longer had to report to ICE under the 287 program. I


22/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


no longer had to keep them apprised of certain things. Our

guys no longer had to do training under their programs.

Q. So when was that happiness expressed, if you recall?

A. I expressed that to Mr. Casey around 2009 during the

depositions, and I believe in depositions leading up to this I

also made that statement, leading up to trial.

Q. And you know when this preliminary injunction was issued,

correct, in this case?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And when was that?

A. 2011, I believe; December 23rd, I believe.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

There was some testimony yesterday regarding

predetermination hearings.

THE COURT: Can I do something for you?

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, sir.

THE COURT: That's all right. You don't need to be

sorry.

THE WITNESS: I can -- I'll get through it, Boss. I'm

sorry.

THE COURT: Well, that's okay. I just -- you need

some water?

THE WITNESS: I have it, sir. I'll get through, sir.

I'm sorry.

THE COURT: That's all right.


23/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


THE WITNESS: I don't want to come -- I don't want to

have to come back up here tomorrow, so I just want to press on,

if it's all right.

MR. POPOLIZIO: I was checking for a cough drop and I

do not have one.

THE COURT: Oh, I think I can find one.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Mr. Segura has one, if you'd like.

THE WITNESS: Can I trust them?

MR. POPOLIZIO: I think you can.

THE WITNESS: All right. Thank you, sir.

(Pause in proceedings.)

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. All right. So yesterday do you recall some questions being

asked about predetermination hearings?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And, Lieutenant, did you avail yourself to the

predetermination hearing process with regard to IA 14-542?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And did you, in that predetermination process,

address Chief Olson in a hearing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall yesterday if Ms. Wang asked you --

"Wong," I'm sorry.

MS. WANG: No problem.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:


24/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


Q. -- asked you yesterday whether it was a valid defense to a

complaint that you simply did not remember seeing

Sergeant Madrid's memo?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Well, in your predetermination hearing did you

provide Chief Olson with reasons that you felt justified that

you should not be disciplined?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you author a memo including those reasons?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you provide that memo to Chief Olson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you discuss the reasons set forth in that memo with

Chief Olson?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was the fact that you didn't recall seeing

Sergeant Madrid's memo the only reason you gave Chief Olson

that you should not be disciplined?

A. Not the only reason.

Q. And the reasons are set forth in that memo?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, let's turn back to the preliminary injunction.

THE COURT: Before you do that, I'm just trying to

keep track of things as we go.

Sergeant Madrid's memo, I'm sorry, I should remember


25/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


this from yesterday, but was that related to the complaint, the

citizen complaints that were being made about Deputy

Armendariz?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Or was it the $300? I've forgotten which.

THE WITNESS: I believe the memo was reference the

purse and the missing $300.

THE COURT: Okay. So the memo was about the $300, but

it was -- it didn't deal so much with the citizen's complaint

issue?

THE WITNESS: The memo was -- that was just -- that

was just one complaint.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. You mentioned a few times in your testimony the sending of

e-mails, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. You also -- well, strike that.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, I'd like to show the

witness what's in evidence as Exhibit 2537.

THE COURT: Would you like it published? It's in

evidence.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may publish. Lisa, thank you.

Let me just ask counsel: Do we have double-tracking


26/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2

09:2


of some of these exhibits? Are they admitted twice?

MR. POPOLIZIO: I think there are exhibits that are --

that are duplicative.


MR. POPOLIZIO: But I know for a fact this is in

evidence.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Admitted on 9-29, Your Honor.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Okay. Do you have before you Exhibit 2537?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, Lieutenant Sousa, could you go to the e-mail

dated January 11, 2012.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And this is an e-mail from you?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this the e-mail that you were talking about earlier that

you sent to Sergeant Palmer?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what's the title on this e-mail?

A. The subject is "Putting out training reference the court

order."

Q. Okay. And when you say reference the court order in that

e-mail, what court order are you referring to?

A. Judge Snow's December 2011 preliminary injunction.


27/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:2

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


Q. Okay. And when you use the words "putting out training,"

what do you intend that to mean?

A. Training to ensure that we're in compliance with the court

order.

Q. Now, you sent this e-mail to some other individuals,

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, looking at your e-mail, Lieutenant Sousa, the

e-mail dated January 11, 2012, you sent this to Brett Palmer,

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. You also sent this e-mail to yourself, is that

right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why?

A. When I wanted to keep track of something, I always sent it

to myself so it's in my in-box so I keep -- so I can keep it in

front of me every time I open up my e-mail.

Q. Okay. So now -- so it was a way to track it yourself.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, aside from Sergeant Palmer, there were a number

people carbon-copied on this e-mail, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And let's take them one at a time.

You sent a copy of this e-mail to Tim Casey?


28/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Why did you send a copy of this particular e-mail to

Tim Casey?

A. He was our attorney of record on the Melendres matter, and

it would be a heads-up that this is coming.

Q. Okay. Now, as counsel, as Mr. Casey being your counsel on

the Melendres matter, did you value his input?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. Because he's an attorney that can interpret what we write,

see if we're within the order.

Q. Did you, as a lieutenant with MCSO working in HSU, feel

qualified to provide legal advice regarding this preliminary

injunction?

A. Legal advice, no.

Q. Did you feel that any of the individuals under your command

were qualified to provide legal advice with regard to the


A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. And why not?

A. We're not lawyers.

Q. Now, there's a -- the next individual after Mr. Casey on

the carbon copied line, there's a name there. What is that

name?

A. Rollie Seebert.


29/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


Q. Okay. And it says Rollie Seebert, and then there's, right

after his name, Sheriff with an X, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Who is Rollie Seebert?

A. I believe at the time he was the director of the training

division.

Q. Okay. And why did you include -- did you say "director"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you include Director Seebert on this e-mail?

A. Once again, a heads-up that this was coming.

Q. Okay. That what was coming?

A. The training scenarios to be put out.

Q. Okay. The next name there is whose name? In the e-mail

chain under the carbon copy.

A. Brian Sands.

Q. Okay. And Brian Sands was your chief at the time?

A. Three star, I believe executive chief.

Q. Okay. Was he in your chain of command?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And why did you send this e-mail to Chief Sands?

A. So he was in the loop of what we were doing.

Q. And why is that important to you as a lieutenant in HSU?

A. So my commanders know what I'm doing.

Q. Is that something that you would normally think it would be

important, to have your commanders know what you were doing?


30/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And why is that?

A. 'Cause it's -- the order was important. We needed to get

something in writing.

Q. Is this the only time that you would have chosen to cc

Chief Sands on an e-mail with regard to HSU business?

A. I'm sure I've cc'd him on a lot of HSU business.

Q. And you also cc'd Chief Trombi, is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And why is that?

A. He was my direct supervisor.

Q. Now, there's a name here, Eileen Henry. Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Who is Eileen Henry?

A. She's either a -- she works in Tim Casey's office. I don't

remember if she's a paralegal or an office assistant, but

usually, if I wanted to also make sure Mr. Casey was aware of

something, if I went to Eileen I would -- there would be

chances that she would let him know about it.

Q. Okay. Did Eileen Henry respond to you, to this e-mail? If

you recall.

A. I don't recall.

Q. Now, looking at this e-mail of January 11, 2012, do you see

where there's boldface type?

A. Yes, sir.


31/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


Q. And right above the boldface type are three words. What

are those words?

A. "Judge Snow's order."

Q. Okay. Would you do me a favor? I know that you have the

frog in your throat, but would you do me a favor and read the

boldface type that you placed in this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir. "The Court is enjoining the MCSO 'from detaining

any person based solely on knowledge, without more, that the

person is in the country without lawful -- lawful authority.

To be clear, the Court is not enjoining MCSO from enforcing

valid state laws, or detaining individuals when officers have

reasonable suspicion that individuals are violating a state

criminal law. Instead, it is enjoining MCSO from violating

federal rights protected by the United States Constitution in

the process of enforcing valid state law based on an incorrect

understanding of the law.'"

Q. Okay.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Before I follow up, Your Honor, may I

give the lieutenant some cough drops?

THE COURT: Sure.

THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir.

MS. WANG: Let the record reflect they're from

plaintiffs.

THE WITNESS: I apologize, sir.

THE COURT: That's all right.


32/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the

clerk.)

THE COURT: Which two monitors do we have out?

MR. McDONALD: Judge, these two here are out. Just

these two are out.

THE COURT: Do you object if we proceed if we bring

somebody up to fix those monitors, or do you want to break

while we get them fixed?

MR. McDONALD: I personally don't object. I'm taking

careful notes. I can't speak for the others.

MR. COMO: I'm fine, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I hope it won't be too

much of a disruption, but we're going to have somebody from

our --

MR. McDONALD: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- IT staff come up during trial.

(Off-the-record discussion between the Court and the

clerk.)

THE COURT: Well, what we'll do is we'll leave that

monitor on on the far wall unless, Mr. Popolizio, you're going

to introduce something that has not yet been admitted into

evidence.

MR. POPOLIZIO: There will be one exhibit, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. And in that case, what we will

do is take that monitor down unless and until we admit the


33/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3

09:3


exhibit.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And if you need to look at it, Mr. Como,

Mr. McDonald, if we could just have you step over, do whatever

you need to, we'll try to accommodate you.

MR. McDONALD: Thank you, Judge.

MR. COMO: Thank you, Judge.


MR. POPOLIZIO: Also, for whatever it's worth, I

turned that monitor towards them.


BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Okay. Back to where we were, Lieutenant.

You just read the boldface type in your e-mail.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that boldface type appears under three words that says

"Judge Snow's order."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Is that part of Judge Snow's order?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Why did you type a part of Judge Snow's order into this

e-mail?

A. Because I believed that was the meat and potatoes of the

order, and I wanted everyone copied in the string to know what

the scenarios were referencing.


34/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:3

09:3

09:4

09:4

09:4


Q. And why did you boldface it?

A. I believe I cut and pasted it right out of Tim Casey's

e-mail like that, sir.

Q. Now, this e-mail is specifically addressed to

Sergeant Palmer, is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He's "Brett"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, look at the first line in the first paragraph

under the name "Bret."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. It says: "Per our phone conversation write up a

couple of scenarios (right way and wrong way) based on Judge

Snow's order to MCSO and your conversations with Tim Casey."

Could you highlight that, please.

Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, do you recall having a phone conversation with

Sergeant Palmer with regard to training scenarios?

A. As I sit here today, I don't recall the conversation, but

it's obvious I had one.

Q. Now, did you want Sergeant Palmer to draw up training

scenarios with regard to the preliminary injunction?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you order him to do so?


35/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, here it says "right way/wrong way."

Do you see that? In parens?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Did you tell Sergeant Palmer to draw up training

scenarios in both -- that would be both right and wrong under

the preliminary injunction?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Why did you tell him to do that?

A. So we had examples of how -- what was the right thing to do

and what was the wrong thing to do.

Q. So okay. So why would you want the wrong way to do things?

A. So deputies know not what -- what not to do.

Q. And the right way would tell them what?

A. The right way to do it.

Q. Okay. And was it your idea to put forth both right way and

wrong way?

A. That's what it looks like.

Q. In any event, you told Sergeant Palmer to do that, is that

right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, it says here in the e-mail, in that first line

that is highlighted right now, "and your conversations with Tim

Casey." Do you see that? First line.

First line highlighted. It's the second line,


36/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


actually, first sentence. Do you see it?

A. We still on the first page?

Q. Okay. On the January 11, 2012 e-mail, under "Bret" there's

a highlighted -- if you look on the screen there's a

highlighted sentence. Starts off "Per our phone conversation."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. It reads: "Per our phone conversation write a

couple of -- write up a couple of scenarios (right way and

wrong way) based on Judge Snow's order to MCSO and your

conversations with Tim Casey."

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you know if Sergeant Palmer had conversations

with Tim Casey?

A. I'm sure he did if I wrote it.

Q. And your memory would be better on January 11, 2012, than

it would be today with regard to this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Is there any reason that you would -- you would type

in "your conversations with Tim Casey" if you believed that

Sergeant Palmer did not have conversations with Tim Casey?

A. No, he would -- if I typed it, it's 'cause he had a

conversation with him.

Q. Okay. What did you intend to do with the training

scenarios once you received them from Sergeant Palmer?

A. Send them off to Mr. Casey.


37/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


Q. Okay. And why did you intend to do that?

A. So he could tell us if the scenarios were on track. These

were going to be rough drafts, so we could get them to where we

need to get them to be within the order.

Q. Okay. Now, you also sent them to Chief Sands. Well, you

also sent this e-mail to Chief Sands, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Were you looking for any input from Chief Sands?

A. It's been so long, sir, I -- I can't remember.

Q. Okay. Why would you put Chief Sands on this e-mail, again?

A. So he was in the -- so he was in the loop on what we were

doing.

Q. As a lieutenant in HSU, would you be able to just submit

training scenarios to training at MCSO?

A. No.

Q. Okay. How would that happen, then?

A. I would need the permission of an executive chief or -- or

my direct chief.

Q. Okay. And is your executive chief on this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is your direct chief on this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, in fact, if you look at your -- your e-mail,

this is the January 11, 2012 e-mail, let's look at the second

sentence in the first paragraph.


38/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4


Okay. Second sentence. Would you read that to me,

please. Begins "I will."

A. "I will have Tim review what you write up and have Chief

Sands sign off on it."

Q. Okay. Does that reflect your intent with regard to the

training scenarios that you wanted Sergeant Palmer to draw up?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, the next sentence, read that to me. "Once all"

starts.

A. "Once all that is done we will get with training reference

putting something out in E-Learning."

Q. Okay. Now, when you say you will "get with training," who

will you get with?

A. I don't know who the staff is over there, but it would have

probably been one of their lieutenants, or with the director.

Q. Okay. And the director is who?

A. Rollie Seebert.

Q. Okay.

A. But most likely, I would have dealt it to one of his

subordinates.

Q. And could you tell me, if you know, what E-Learning is?

A. It's online training at the Sheriff's Office.

Q. So in terms of training with regard to any scenarios to be

developed for this preliminary injunction, you wanted them to

go out as E-Learning?


39/251


40/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:4

09:5


Q. Now, Lieutenant, why did you choose Sergeant Palmer for the

particular task of developing training scenarios?

A. He was the senior sergeant and had the most time in the

field.

Q. Was he experienced with HSU operations?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He had the most time out in the field, you said?

A. For sergeants, yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And how long had he been with HSU?

A. Probably close to three years; I could be wrong on that.

Q. Now, do you recall Mr. Casey testifying that he had some

concerns that Sergeant Palmer did not understand the


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever expect that Sergeant Palmer's training

scenarios would be the final version of any training that would

be issued at MCSO?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. And why not?

A. I expected whatever our attorney signed off on to be the

final product.

Q. Now, still looking at Exhibit 2537, there's an e-mail above

the January 11th e-mail. It's dated January 11th also, but at

4:02 p.m.

Do you see that?


41/251


42/251


43/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


Q. And is there any -- anybody else copied on that e-mail?

A. Tim Casey and Sergeant Trowbridge.

Q. And do you recognize this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what is this e-mail?

A. He's sending me the rough drafts of the scenarios.

Q. So these are the training scenarios we've heard so much

about in this hearing?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. These are the drafts that Sergeant Palmer provided you

according to your order for him to do so?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how many training scenarios are there?

THE COURT: Mr. Popolizio?

MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.

THE COURT: You got it? All right.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Sorry.

A. Four.

Q. Okay. Did you tell Sergeant Palmer to draw up four?

A. I don't believe I gave him a specific number.

Q. Okay. You just said "draw up right way/wrong way"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you have any expectations on how many he would draw up?

A. I don't recall, sir.


44/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


Q. Now, just scrolling down this e-mail, there are actual

headings on this e-mail with regard to each scenario, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So you have Scenario 1.

You see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Scenario 2?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Scenario 3?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Scenario 4?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, look at the -- well, let's see here.

Look at the first paragraph of this January 19, 2012

e-mail. Starts with the word "Below."

See that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Because your voice is a little bit weak, I'm going

to read that sentence to you. "Below is my rough construction

of an eLearning segment based on Judge Snow's order."

Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you know if you discussed with Sergeant Palmer

the prospect of creating an E-Learning course regarding

training scenarios for this preliminary injunction?


45/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


A. I have no specific memory, 'cause it's been so long, but

based on what's written here, I'm sure we discussed it.

Q. Okay. Now, it says there "my rough construction."

You see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you believe that to mean here with regard to these

scenarios?

A. That this was not a final product.

Q. Okay. And the final product would be a product of input

from whom?

A. Tim Casey.

Q. Now, the next sentence states: "I constructed this in

accordance with the many conversations you & I have had, as

well as taking into account the information conveyed to us from

Tim Casey concerning Judge Snow's order."

Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. So at least according to this e-mail, you had more

than one conversation -- well, did you have more than one

conversation with Sergeant Palmer?

A. Based on the e-mail, I'm assuming I did.

Q. Okay. Do you doubt that you had more than one conversation

with Sergeant Palmer?


46/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5

09:5


A. I'm sure we had several conversations.

Q. Regarding this preliminary injunction and the training.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, Sergeant Palmer states, "as well as taking into

account the information conveyed to us both from Tim Casey

concerning Judge Snow's order."

Do you see that? The end of that sentence.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And I know that you testified to this yesterday but

we're skipping to the next day. Did Tim Casey ever provide you

any information with regarding -- with regard to AOR in this


A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. When you look at these training scenarios, is AOR

mentioned anywhere?

A. No, sir.

Q. You can take the highlight off now.

Do you see about the fourth line down in that first

paragraph, you see the words "I think"? See that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. It states here: "I think it is imperative that Tim

Casey review this and any training material I am asked to

create that could be used to instruct Deputies in this very

sensitive area."

Do you see that?


47/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

09:5

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And those are Sergeant Palmer's words to you in this

e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does that reflect your intent with regard to the training?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you agree that it's imperative that Tim Casey review

any training scenarios regarding this order?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And is that because he was your counsel?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, there's a paragraph, the second paragraph has a

heading, says "Training Directive."

Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, second line down, the second sentence starts

"It is." Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. States here: "It is important that the Deputies and

the Supervisors understand the scope to which they are

empowered to act in these scenarios, as limits have recently

been set by Judge Murray Snow in a Federal court case."


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Was it important to you that MCSO personnel


48/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


understood the scope of their powers under the preliminary

injunction?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And why is that?

A. So we're operating within the law and the order.

Q. Okay. And that's important as a -- as a deputy in the

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office?

A. Yes, sir.

MS. WANG: Objection, leading.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Is that important to you as a -- as an MCSO deputy?

MS. WANG: Objection, leading.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm going to allow that one.


BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Was it important to you when this injunction was issued?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It's important to you now?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it important to you when you asked Sergeant Palmer to

develop these training scenarios?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Going back to that second paragraph --

You can take the highlight off.


49/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


Do you see the sentence that starts off, "The order

issued by"?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. It states: "The order issued by Judge Snow states

that MCSO cannot detain any person based solely on the

suspicion they are an illegal alien present in the United

States."


MS. WANG: Your Honor --


MS. WANG: -- objection, 403, as to continued lengthy

reading from an exhibit in evidence.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, I'd like to say that I

would -- it's in evidence and I can, and I'm trying to save the

lieutenant's voice.

THE COURT: Well, that's okay. I mean, I'm going to

allow it. I've allowed the plaintiffs to read from exhibits.

But I do think lengthy reading of exhibits that I can read

myself is sometimes quite exhaustive. But I've allowed

plaintiffs to do it, I'm going to allow you to do it up to a

limited extent.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Um-hum.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Lieutenant Sousa, do you agree with that sentence?


50/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, is that a limitation that you understood as ordered by

this Court?

A. That we couldn't make the arrest, yes, sir.

Q. Now, the next sentence. Starts "What this means."

Do you see that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Highlight that, please.

MR. POPOLIZIO: And I am going to read this one, Your

Honor, but I'm mindful of your instruction.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. The sentence states: "What this means is that any Deputy

who has contact with a person and during the contact, the

Deputy arrives at the reasonable suspicion through articulable

indicators that the person may be an illegal alien in the

United States, cannot and will not detain or further the

detainment of this person without having more than just this

singular suspicion."


A. Correct.

Q. Okay. Do you agree with that sentence?

A. Correct. We can't make that arrest and we can't detain

them for that purpose.

Q. Okay. Was what Sergeant Palmer stated there in this

e-mail, under the Training Directive, consistent with your


51/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


understanding of the order at the time? The judge's order.

A. Correct. I believed during the traffic stop we could make

the phone call, and then once we made the phone call to ICE

during the course of the traffic stop, and if they said to

detain them, that would be their detainment.

Q. Okay. Let's scroll up to the January 24, 2012 e-mail.

Do you see where I am, Lieutenant?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. You sent this e-mail?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who'd you send the e-mail to?

A. Tim Casey.

Q. Okay. And there are other people cc'd on that -- on this

e-mail, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Is this the e-mail by which you forwarded the

training scenarios to Tim Casey?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what date did you do that?

A. January 24th.

Q. And did you ask Tim Casey to give you a call once he had

reviewed the scenarios?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you receive a call from Tim Casey in response to this

e-mail?


52/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0

10:0


A. Based on this string of e-mails, no, sir.

Q. Okay. Let's go to the next e-mail up in the chain.

Well, strike that.

Why did you ask Mr. Casey to give you a call,

Lieutenant, once he had reviewed these e-mails?

A. I'm pretty sure at the time I wanted to talk to him about

them and talk about his opinion on his initial review.

Q. After sending this e-mail, did you attempt to follow up

with Mr. Casey?

A. I believe I sent another e-mail when I hadn't heard from

him.

Q. Okay.

MR. POPOLIZIO: Your Honor, may I show the witness

what is marked as Exhibit 2540? It's not in evidence.

THE COURT: 2540?

MR. POPOLIZIO: Yes.

THE COURT: Sure.

But let's just show it to the witness, please, Lisa.

BY MR. POPOLIZIO:

Q. Could you just look this -- this document over, please.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recognize this e-mail chain?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what do you recognize the subject of this e-mail chain

to be?


53/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:0

10:0

10:1

10:1

10:1


A. I believe this was a string of e-mails I had saved that I

found.

Q. Regarding what?

A. The judge's order.

Q. Okay. Is this an e-mail chain regarding training scenarios

for review, based on the judge's order?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recognize the first three e-mails in this chain?

A. Can we scroll?

Yes, sir.

Q. And what do you recognize these three e-mails to be?

A. It's the e-mails I sent.

Q. About what?

A. The judge's order.

Q. Okay. And are there four other e-mails in this chain?

Do you have the paper in front of you? It might be

easier.

A. I've got it in front of me, sir.

Q. Okay. So are there four other e-mails in that chain?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do those e-mails also relate to the training scenarios?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were these e-mails sent or received, to your knowledge, at

or near the dates that appear on these e-mails?

A. Yes, sir.


54/251

F R I E N D

O F T

H E F O G

B O W . C

M12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

10:1

Sousa - CX Popolizio, 10/9/15 Evidentiary Hearin

Documents

Melendres v. Arpaio #1466 Oct 9 2015 TRANSCRIPT - DAY 12 Evidentiary Hearing