University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. Maricopa County PN-AZ-0001
Docket / Court 2:12-cv-00981-LOA ( D. Ariz. )
State/Territory Arizona
Case Type(s) Policing
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
This lawsuit was the result of an investigation launched by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009 into the alleged targeting and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Prior to this case, the DOJ filed a related ... read more >
This lawsuit was the result of an investigation launched by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2009 into the alleged targeting and unconstitutional treatment of Latinos by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.

Prior to this case, the DOJ filed a related lawsuit in September 2010 against Maricopa County under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the Sheriff's Office's failure to cooperate with the DOJ investigation (PN-AZ-0001 of this Clearinghouse). Maricopa County settled that lawsuit in June 2011, and agreed to cooperate.

On December 15, 2011, a findings letter reporting the result of the investigation was issued by the DOJ. The letter found that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) was engaged in an unconstitutional pattern of policing. The DOJ found that the MSCO profiles Latinos, and unlawfully stops, detains, and arrests Latinos. The DOJ also found that services in the Maricopa County Jail for people of limited English proficiency are sub-par or nonexistent. The DOJ found that these problems are underscored by the lack of policy or procedure to ensure constitutional policing.

On May 10, 2012, the DOJ filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Maricopa County and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Specifically, the DOJ's complaint alleged that:

  • (1) the MSCO's policies and practices discriminated against Latino persons;

  • (2) the MSCO targeted Latino workers
    for enforcement of state identity theft laws resulting in the seizure of Latino persons at worksites without reasonable suspicion;

  • (3) the MSCO's discriminatory law enforcements practices violated Title VI;

  • (4) the County's jails discriminated against limited English proficiency Latino prisoners in violation of Title VI;

  • (5) the County and MSCO were violating their Title VI contractual assurances; and

  • (6) the County and MSCO retaliated against persons in Maricopa County on the basis of their protected speech.



The DOJ requested injunctive and declaratory relief to stop Maricopa County's alleged pattern or practice of depriving Latino persons of their constitutional rights and discrimination against Latinos in violation of Title VI.

On December 12, 2012, Chief Judge Roslyn O. Silver granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the MCSO from the case, ruling the MCSO was not an entity that could sue or be sued, but denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

On September 4, 2014, after lengthy discovery, proceedings were held before Judge Silver in which both parties informed the court that they would be filing dispositive motions. On October 27, the DOJ filed its motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Defendants were precluded by collateral estoppel from re-litigating the issue of whether the MSCO's traffic stops constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The DOJ claimed that the issue had already been decided against the MSCO in Melendres v. Arpaio, where the MCSO was a defendant. 989 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Ariz. 2013) (PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse). On the same day, the Defendants made a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that neither Title VI nor § 14141 authorized this suit against Maricopa County. On June 15, 2015, Judge Silver issued an order granting the DOJ's motion with respect to the traffic stops and denying the Defendants' motion.

On July 15, 2015, Judge Silver ordered the parties to file a joint statement setting forth what issues still remained for trial. In response, on July 17, the parties filed a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement regarding the second, fourth, and sixth claims for relief from the DOJ's complaint. The MSCO agreed to stop unconstitutionally enforcing state identity theft laws and develop an anti-retaliation policy. On July 20, the DOJ moved to stay this action until the court in Melendres (PN-AZ-0003 in this Clearinghouse), where the DOJ had recently intervened, found that the defendants had maintained compliance with an injunction. However, the defendants argued this was inappropriate since the DOJ's motion to intervene in Melendres claimed the DOJ would terminate this case if the motion was granted. On September 2, 2015, Judge Silver granted the parties' joint motion to approve the settlement agreement, but agreed with the defendants that the DOJ was required to terminate this case and pursue further relief in the Melendres action. Judge Silver ordered the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the DOJ for the first, third, and fifth claims and enter the settlement agreement for the second, fourth, and sixth claims.

On December 30, 2015, the defendants appealed this case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the defendants' appeal.

Blase Kearney - 05/14/2012
Kenneth Gray
John He - 02/05/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Freedom of speech/association
Unreasonable search and seizure
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Retaliation Prohibition
Warrant/order for search or seizure
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
Language discrimination
National origin discrimination
Race discrimination
General
Conditions of confinement
Disparate Treatment
Failure to discipline
Failure to supervise
Failure to train
False arrest
Inadequate citizen complaint investigations and procedures
Language/ethnic/minority needs
Pattern or Practice
Racial profiling
Search policies
Transportation
Language
Spanish
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 14141
Defendant(s) Maricopa County
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing PN-AZ-0002 : United States v. Maricopa County (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0003 : Melendres v. Arpaio (D. Ariz.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Federal Enforcement of Police Reform
By: Stephen Rushin (University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program )
Citation: 82 Fordham Law Review 3189 (2014)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Panopticism for Police: Structural Reform Bargaining and Police Regulation by Data-Driven Surveillance
By: Mary D. Fan (University of Washington)
Citation: Forthcoming, 87 Washington L. Rev. __ (2012).
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  What Happens When Police Are Forced to Reform?
Written: Nov. 13, 2015
By: Kimbriell Kelly, Sarah Childress and Steven Rich (Frontline/Post)
Citation: Washington Post (Nov. 13, 2015)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:12-cv-00981-LOA (D. Ariz.) 01/04/2016
PN-AZ-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
United States' Investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office 12/15/2011
PN-AZ-0001-0004.pdf | Detail
Complaint 05/10/2012
PN-AZ-0001-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 12/12/2012 (915 F.Supp.2d 1073) (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0001-0006.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 06/15/2015 (2015 WL 9266969) (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0001-0011.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement 07/17/2015
PN-AZ-0001-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section
Order 07/17/2015 (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0001-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section
Joint Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement 07/17/2015
PN-AZ-0001-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section
Justice Department Reaches Settlement in Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Maricopa County, Arizona, and Maricopa County Sheriff 07/17/2015
PN-AZ-0001-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section
Order 09/02/2015 (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0001-0012.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Anderson, Lawrence O. (D. Ariz.) [Magistrate]
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Silver, Roslyn O. (D. Ariz.)
PN-AZ-0001-0006 | PN-AZ-0001-0007 | PN-AZ-0001-0011 | PN-AZ-0001-0012 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Buehler, Brian D. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Caspar, Edward G. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0001 | PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Cheema, Puneet (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Coe, Cynthia (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Gayle, Winsome (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0001 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Kappelhoff, Mark (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0007 | PN-AZ-0001-0009
Killebrew, Paul (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Mondino, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0001 | PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Morse, Thomas Jackson (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0009
Perez, Sergio (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0001 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0004 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Preston, Judith C. (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-0009
Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Ackerman, Justin Michael (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Connolly, Joel E. (Illinois)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Dysart, Robert L (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Jirauch, Charles W. (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Jones, William R. Jr. (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Masterson, John T. (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Owers, Roger Stephen (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Popolizio, Joseph John (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Voepel, Lori Lea (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-9000
Walker, Richard K (Arizona)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Webb, Dan K. (Illinois)
PN-AZ-0001-0009 | PN-AZ-0001-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -