▶ 0:06:55Check one, two.
▶ 0:10:55Come to order. I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at
▶ 0:11:25any We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the monitoring of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Without objection, Mr. Fry will be permitted to participate in today's hearing or receive um 5 minutes or more to question the This is I want everyone to understand this is an official congressional hearing even though it is being held in Phoenix at this Arizona State Legislature. We will abide by all the rules of uh the House of Representatives and the House Judiciary Committee.
▶ 0:11:54This is uh being televised as live by C-SPAN, which is a norm for federal congressional hearings. we expect the quorum to be enforced uh just like we would if we were sitting in a hearing room in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
▶ 0:12:18Um I also want to offer a short explanation cuz I I served here for many years and uh there is a distinction between what happens in a state legislative hearing and a federal congressional hearing. In a state legislative hearing, it is common for the public to have access to microphones and be able to speak. That is uh not the norm nor typical I've never actually seen it in frankly in a congressional hearing.
▶ 0:12:45I don't believe it's permissible, but uh that's why uh we have witnesses that will come and testify and uh that's the way that's one of the big distinctions between a state hearing and a congressional hearing. So, I wanted to clarify that. Now, uh without further ado, I recognize myself for an opening statement. I thank everyone who is participating in today's field hearing in the beautiful state capital of Phoenix, Arizona.
▶ 0:13:16Uh I thank our witnesses for being here. I thank the staff and um the media who are here and I thank mostly citizens who are here or watching this live uh for participating in that While today's hearing is focused on the special monitor here in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across this nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or a similar situation.
▶ 0:13:44Since December 2013, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has been under federal judicial oversight following a Department of Justice investigation into a case that started in 2008, Ortega Mendoza versus Arpaio. In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers aided by the ACLU filed the lawsuit against Maricopa County and then share then Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
▶ 0:14:07The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging in a systemic systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling, including stopping, detaining, and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status.
▶ 0:14:23Following a bench trial in December 2011, US District Judge Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal investigations. Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of liability.
▶ 0:14:50DOJ DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by state or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.
▶ 0:15:05In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed federal court monitor Robert Warshaw oversee MCSO's compliance with the court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy development and Following that in July 2015, the court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms.
▶ 0:15:32The federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions. Yet, oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end date.
▶ 0:15:46As the federally appointed court monitor, some of Warshaw's tasks include assessing MCSO's adherence to to judicial orders, issuing periodic reports, holding community meetings, and reviewing MCSO internal practices and This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million since 2013.
▶ 0:16:13Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200 square foot office suite for the monitor, costing taxpayers more than $97,000 for a year.
▶ 0:16:32That's in spite of remote This persistent federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention, have discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which ultimately has impacted on the the office's ability to serve and protect the community.
▶ 0:17:02The federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports which track the MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provided the court with independent assessments of policy implementation, operational practices, and overall progress.
▶ 0:17:16Over the Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from 30% in 2014 to more than 94% by 2025, meeting the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94% of instances under review. According to Warshaw, the MCSO's compliance framework has become self-sustaining and institutionalized.
▶ 0:17:42While compliance measurements are based on documented adherence and subject to court review, they are not determined by the monitor. Warshaw also labeled labeled MCSO's compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily work, showing full independent accountability.
▶ 0:18:04Last month, the Trump administration's Justice Department filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency. The department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the consent decree or the judgment have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case and that MCSO's demonstrated sustained system systemic The department cited multiple recent monitor reports
▶ 0:18:34documenting consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability The department indicated that continued federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of both uh decree, the court-appointed monitoring regime, and the court's Maricopa County is not only is not the only jurisdiction lining the
▶ 0:19:04pockets of Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitor monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana. For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance bench benchmarks of federal oversight in Oakland, California.
▶ 0:19:30One of the longest-running federal police oversight regimes in US history since a 2003 settlement. In 2024, 1,508 complaints were filed against OPD's Oakland Police Department's 710 sworn officers, and were nearly universally nearly all were completely Despite spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw Warshaw is paid more than $1 million annually by the city.
▶ 0:20:00A structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship. Warshaw's monitorship is criticized for its expansive scope and prolonged Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment and incentives have also followed Warshaw's consulting contracts elsewhere.
▶ 0:20:24In Niagara Falls, New York, for example, Warshaw was retained at a rate of $200 an hour, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over 2 years despite the mayor's initial public estimate that the contract would total only $57,000. Together, these episodes have been cited by critics as emblematic of a pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency, men internal check on the expansion or duration of his authority.
▶ 0:20:54I look forward to hearing from today's and [clears throat] I thank the members and witnesses for taking part and for the public's interest in attending. I yield back. Uh without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record, and now I'll introduce today's witnesses. Ms. Debbie Lesko. Ms. Lesko represents the fourth district on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, where she is also the vice chair.
▶ 0:21:23She has previously uh served as our colleague in the House of Representatives from 2018 to 2025, and she also served in the Arizona Legislature from 2009 to 2018. Thank you, Supervisor Lesko. Mr. Felix Garcia is a member of the Community Advisory Board for the Monitor of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. He is also the President and CEO of the Zoo Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides materials and resources to families and businesses. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 0:21:53Garcia, for being with us today. Mr. John Riches is vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, and also serves as the Goldwater Institute's general counsel. He litigates in federal and state courts across the country on issues including economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, taxpayer protection, government transparency, and other issues. We welcome our witnesses.
▶ 0:22:19Thank you for appearing today, and now we will ask you to stand and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do you each of you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you I do. Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please be seated.
▶ 0:22:46Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety, and um uh without objection, we'll allow each of you uh considerable leeway on the normal 5-minute uh time Hearing none. Ms. Lesko, oh no, we're not going to begin with you, Ms. Lesko. We're going to actually begin with Mr. Mr. Garcia. So, we're going to go we're going to go back this way. So, Mr. Garcia, uh we welcome you here today and recognize you for your opening statement.
▶ 0:23:19Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is uh Felix Garcia. I am volunteer member of community advisor uh connected with this I want to clear today I am speaking in my personal capacity. My opinions are are my own, and they don't represent the other members board who may be difference view. I decide to to serve because I believe in build trust between law enforce and community they serve, especially with my community, the Hispanic community.
▶ 0:23:47Oversaw the law enforce is important as help protect civil right, ensure accountability, and build trust when has been broken. There is no doubt one time court supervision played an important role in Maricopa County. But oversight shall measure by result after more than 10 years under federal monitoring across a hundred of million dollars taxpayers, is fair to ask this important question. Is the current system still helping our community to move forward?
▶ 0:24:17Over the past year, I work in directly with the community with my nonprofit working for over 10 over 10 years. Over the last the last year, I work in very with the community and the sheriff, organized so many events and I speak to hundreds and hundreds of Latinos leadership, faith, and families across the county. What I hear again and again is the people want to save respect, transparency, and collaboration.
▶ 0:24:44I have personally and engagement between the sheriff office community that one feel disconnected from the law enforce that progress matter. So, my opinion right now with this is, you know, the the my perception is the people, you know, is support the sheriff office. So, thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Garcia. Um we now go to Mr. Riches and recognize you for your opening statement.
▶ 0:25:17Sorry, the microphone, please.
▶ 0:25:19I'm sorry, Mr. Yeah, if if you go ahead and start again, please. Sure. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Uh my name is John Riches. I'm the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. That's a public policy and public interest litigation I want to make two points this morning.
▶ 0:25:37Um one rooted in long-standing constitutional principles of federalism, and the other rooted in democratic accountability and government First, under traditional principles of federalism, law enforcement and local spending decisions are and must remain primarily state and local functions, not one not ones administered indefinitely by federal officials.
▶ 0:26:03Second, when tax dollars are spent to operate local government, including and perhaps especially in the law enforcement context, state public records laws and public policy require transparency, not secrecy. Taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent. As to the federalism point, our Constitution leaves law enforcement to the responsibility of local officials. Indeed, the federal government has no general police power.
▶ 0:26:33Federal courts absolutely have the authority to remedy constitutional but remedies are supposed to be temporary, targeted, and respectful of the state's paramount role in law enforcement, not substitutions for that Here, that structural balance has broken In Maricopa County, a federally appointed out-of-state monitor, selected by one federal judge, has exercised sweeping authority over a local sheriff's office for more than a decade at taxpayer expense
▶ 0:27:03exceeding $30 just for the monitor's expenses. And there's no clear end date in sight. So, at some point, oversight stops being remedial and starts becoming structural. And that raises constitutional concerns.
▶ 0:27:18When federal supervision is open-ended, it supplants local voters, it supplants local officials, and it supplants state The concern is particularly acute here, where core decisions not only involve law enforcement, but spending and ultimately taxation. these have been delegated to a federal agent with no accountability to the public. In that circumstance, there is a transfer of powers that the Constitution assigns to other branches and other levels of government.
▶ 0:27:50Our constitutional structure exists precisely to prevent this. Federal authority, even when well-intentioned, must be limited, reviewable, and constrained, or it violates principles of federalism that are an essential feature of our republic and a guardrail for the protection of individual That brings me to my second point, Under Arizona law and the law of virtually every state, records concerning the operation of government in the expenditure of public funds
▶ 0:28:20are presumptively public. The public has a right to know what their government is up to, and that right is essential to democratic accountability. The Arizona Supreme Court has made this clear time and again. Citizens cannot hold officials accountable if they are denied information about what those officials are doing and how they are spending their money. Yet in this case, millions of dollars are being spent with virtually no meaningful public disclosure.
▶ 0:28:49My organization, the Goldwater Institute, submitted state public records requests to the county and to the monitor seeking an itemized accounting of the monitor's invoices and basic salary information for the monitor Because of existing federal orders in this case, the county does not possess or cannot disclose that information, and the monitor simply didn't respond at Under state law, that outcome would not occur in any other context.
▶ 0:29:17For virtually every public expenditure, things from road construction, consulting contracts, law enforcement grants, itemized invoices and supporting documents are public records. Allowing taxpayer funds to be spent indefinitely without disclosure directly conflicts with Arizona's transparency The only information that has been available to the public consists of heavily redacted or non-descriptive invoices.
▶ 0:29:43There's no detailed time entries, expense reports, or supporting Uh none of that information has been disclosed to the very people on whose behalf and at whose expense the monitor is purportedly operating. That is not how government transparency is supposed to work, and that is not how it does work as a matter of state law.
▶ 0:30:04Secrecy may be justified temporarily to protect a legitimate government interest, but blanket secrecy for more than a decade, long after reforms have been implemented, cannot be squared with democratic norms. In sum, federalism exists to ensure that law enforcement and spending decisions remain locally and democratically Public records laws exist to ensure that taxpayers can see how their government is operating and how their money is being spent.
▶ 0:30:31And when federal oversight overrides both democratic control and transparency, it creates a system that inverts these core principles of our constitutional republic. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Riches. And now we I recognize uh supervisor Lesko for her opening statement. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It's great to be here uh with my former colleagues from Congress, and um Mr.
▶ 0:31:00Chairman and I served right here in these chambers uh is our old stomping ground. So, it's great to be here, and I really want to thank you for traveling here. This is a very important issue for Maricopa County and the taxpayers of Maricopa County and for public safety in Maricopa County.
▶ 0:31:22And that's what this is all about, making sure we protect the As a Maricopa County supervisor, I am here today to talk about the long-term damage caused by the federal court orders in Melendres versus Arpaio. And more specifically the unchecked and costly monitor regime that has grown out of this case.
▶ 0:31:47It has become a clear example of how federal oversight, when left unchecked, can drift far beyond its original purpose at great cost in local control and taxpayers. This all started with a complaint against then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe alleging racial profiling of Latino drivers and passengers.
▶ 0:32:1514 years, three sheriffs, and millions and millions of dollars per year later, the sheriff's office is still under this and costly federal monitor regime. For more than a decade, this monitoring process appears to be operating with virtually no limiting principle.
▶ 0:32:39What began as targeted oversight has evolved into an open-ended system where compliance seems to be constantly new requirements are layered on, and progress is never allowed to be final.
▶ 0:32:56The monitor's role has expanded far beyond verifying constitutional policies and instead has expanded into day-to-day micromanagement of the sheriff's And the consequences have been severe.
▶ 0:33:19Every dollar spent feeding this monitoring bureaucracy is a dollar not spent on deputies, patrols, training, crime prevention, or victim services. Every hour spent satisfying reporting demands is an hour not spent protecting our neighborhoods. The cumulative effect has been a long-term erosion of public safety capacity in Maricopa County.
▶ 0:33:46The public is told this is all necessary by the federal judge. But necessary for whom? The monitor is paid to find and the system seems structured so that their deficiencies are always found. Even when benchmarks are met, new interpretation seems to appear, new metrics emerge, the finish line moves. For example, I want to give you one example.
▶ 0:34:16Just last month, the monitor reversed himself and declared that the sheriff's office is not in compliance with a paragraph that has been in compliance for years. That paragraph requires the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to submit training materials within 90 days of the order, which was satisfied back in June of 2016.
▶ 0:34:42Now, after a decade, the goalposts have yet again been moved. The monitor in this case is the same monitor who has been monitoring the Oakland, California Police Department for the last 25 years. And do you know what the kicker is?
▶ 0:35:02Existing court orders, as has been said before, dating back to 2014 prevent taxpayers from fully knowing where their money is even going. Detailed monitor billing and time entries are provided only to the court. The county itself is restricted from seeing that information, much less sharing that information with the That is not transparency. That is not accountability.
▶ 0:35:32And 12 years later, it's not justified. I want to be very clear. This is not about rejecting constitutional policing or resisting Maricopa County has made significant reforms, many of them at great expense and in good faith. The sheriff's office is doing a fantastic job.
▶ 0:35:58In fact, today, there is no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations. There are no new allegations of targeted immigration enforcement. And the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has achieved 100% compliance with required policy changes.
▶ 0:36:18The 2023 traffic study annual report that the court requires found no statistically significant difference between white drivers and Hispanic drivers across any measured benchmark. So, late last year, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, of which I am a member, filed a Rule 60 motion seeking relief from this federal oversight.
▶ 0:36:45And I am happy to say that the U United States Department of Justice supports a Rule 60 motion to end this oversight. So, let's be clear. The county says it's time. The data says it's time. The monitor's own findings say it's time.
▶ 0:37:07And the United States Department of Justice says it's time to end this burdensome, bureaucratic, costly federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. It's time to recognize that federal monitoring is no longer needed. I say enough is enough. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank Thank you, Supervisor Lesko. [clears throat] I appreciate that. I appreciate your testimony, all of your testimony.
▶ 0:37:35And now um I will recognize uh for his uh questioning and uh the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls. Uh thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I'm an old former sheriff from the great state of Texas, Fort Bend County. Relatively large agency, had about 800,000 people uh there and about 826 deputies.
▶ 0:38:01Um I feel I have some basic understanding on how to manage uh a law enforcement agency. I believe I understand the complexities that law enforcement are facing today across the And I do believe that uh public safety above all else is our number one priority, public safety. I am concerned with the impact of the federal judicial monitor on the ability of this sheriff's office to adequately investigate, solve, and deter crime. And and I know, Mr.
▶ 0:38:31Chairman, you brought it up in your opening remarks, but I believe it's worth repeating. And like how did we get here? How did this all begin? And when you go back to that or take uh Melendres versus uh the 2007-2008 time frame, uh allegations uh surfaced of racial profiling, I believe, in the lieutenant Latino community.
▶ 0:38:59All right, in 2011, I guess there was a bench trial, and and then in 2013, the district judge, G. Murray Snow, ruled that the sheriff's office violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions implementing the sweeping reforms. Apparently, it had to get down to to the policies, to training, to operations, to internal investigations. 2014, then, the judge appoints Robert as the federal court monitor.
▶ 0:39:292015, they come back a little bit and say we got to make some additional remedial measures. And so I I the question I have to ask for all of you, one at a time, is is was there, at that time a need for this judicial oversight? Ms. Lesko? Just a yes or no, really. I mean, was there a need for it at the time? Uh thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Nells. I was not involved at the time,
▶ 0:39:58Okay. but there were allegations and the federal court withheld upheld them. And so, they had a court order Sure. and said things need to be changed. What I can tell you for sure, as a matter of
▶ 0:40:11Yeah. is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has now gone through four sheriffs and tirelessly Sure. to make reforms and make sure that they are in compliance. Yeah. And so, as I have said, they're in 100% compliance on their [clears throat] policies and many of the paragraphs, they have done everything over and above to Yeah. satisfy this court, but it's never enough.
▶ 0:40:41I'm not disagreeing with anything that you said, but my question is is at the that the judge made the ruling back in 2014, was there a need for this type of judicial oversight, Mr. Riches? Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman, federal courts do exist to remedy constitutional violations and if the court finds a constitutional violation, they can put in in place orders to remedy it. Uh the question uh today though is very different than the question as to what happened then. And as Ms.
▶ 0:41:08Lesko indicated, we're now four sheriffs and uh beyond beyond uh the remedial purpose of the initial uh allegations of the
▶ 0:41:15How about you, Mr. Garcia? Do you believe back then, when this judge, appointed by Bush by the way, appointed by President Bush, do you believe that there was a need to have this back then? I mean, I wasn't You know, I tell you, I was an old sheriff 2012 to 2020 and and I heard about show me your papers. I heard about this sheriff and, you know, you know, tents and everything else. I mean, there was a lot of attention. They used to call him America's sheriff. Right. Do you feel at the time when the decision was made? I'm not talking about today.
▶ 0:41:43Four different sheriffs now, three or four, but back at the time, was was it necessary? I think yes, you know, I think in that moment it's necessary. At Thank you for for Okay. So, his job then, this this federal this Mr. was to, I guess, get the Sheriff's Office to comply with the permanent injunctions the court ordered.
▶ 0:42:07His job issue periodic reports, hold community meetings, which I'd like to get into a little bit, and then review the Sheriff's Office's internal policies and and practices. So, I'm going to talk a little bit about the periodic reports. Um I guess there were 40-plus reports uh that have been issued. These reports have shown uh significant improvements. I think, Ms. Lesko, you brought it up. 100% you said a few times. These reports have shown much improvement uh or compliance.
▶ 0:42:38Uh the compliance rate back in 2014 was 30%. So, I'm kind of believing, you know, maybe back then there was a need. You know, they It was an It was an And then you see we get to 2025 and we're at 94%. these 40-plus reports, I mean, the fourth report back in 2015 had a 40% compliance rate. The 26th report back in issued in 2020, they're up to 98%.
▶ 0:43:09Report number 33 and 34 back in 2022 and 2025 show compliance rates of 93-94%. So, it it certainly appears to me that the Sheriff's Office has complied with all the aspects, all right, of this judicial ruling. And if I may, uh Mr. Garcia, I would like to start with you. Uh if you could uh for me, I'm new to this here.
▶ 0:43:34I don't know who you are, but would you be willing to share with us a little bit about your background, how long you've you've lived here and why are you on this committee? What's your community involvement been? What makes you, I don't want to say, so special, but what made you part of this process? So, basically, I live in uh Phoenix, Arizona for the last uh 26 years. I live in North Central Phoenix. Um I'm a Mexican-American born in Hermosillo, Mexico.
▶ 0:44:00So, I'm working with the community for, you know, for so many years with my nonprofit. In my nonprofit, we have one uh immigration program, especially for new citizenships. So, we're very active in the community. With the last sheriff, working very close with uh Penzone and uh Hispanic board. And with the new sheriff, I'm, you know, I'm appointed with the sheriff to in this board. Okay.
▶ 0:44:25It in in again in the recent years, uh the Sheriff's Office has reached very successful compliance uh with this oversight of the judicial monitor. Um I believe you you mentioned it in your your opening that you believe the relationship today with the sheriff and the community he is charged to protect and serve is better today than what it once was. It's excellent.
▶ 0:44:54I have attending every single event with the sheriff. One especially in November, we have one uh it's not my event, but we have uh one turkey event, a wall holoton with the Prensa Arizona. And the sheriff is coming and this is a 100% Latinos come first, second generation. And everybody in the event is interested to take picture with the sheriff. Mhm. You know, not only the people participate, but every person in the event.
▶ 0:45:21And we organize another events for the sheriff and everybody is interested in interaction with the sheriff.
▶ 0:45:27So, you've What you're saying is you've seen improved relationships. You're noticing it between the community and the Sheriff's Office. I mean, did When I started in my law enforcement career 30 years ago, I mean, community policing, it was the buzzword. It was the big deal. Community policing. You don't have issues. The Sheriff's Offices or I'll just focus on major large municipal police.
▶ 0:45:51When there is friction or the the Sheriff's Office or the the police department and the people, the when they have when there's distrust there, things are going to get ugly. And we've seen it across our nation over the past several years when there's a distrust. Did we You've been here this long.
▶ 0:46:10Did you Have you noticed Did we have community policing philosophy at the Sheriff's Office back in 2012 or 20 Was that philosophy to to build the relationships with the people? Yeah, I'm working very close, you know, uh with my nonprofit, you know, almost I working with the with the sheriff I think in And the
▶ 0:46:30the relationship with the community is, you know, is very active, you know, you know, after, you know, Sheriff Arpaio left, you know, the the inside everything start to change. So, I see the the different right now and so, it's good, I think. Well, very good. So, you believe that that uh I guess, point-blank, what's changed?
▶ 0:46:52Give me an example of what's changed now that you see all of a sudden now a strong relationship versus having a federal court get involved uh with these injunctions. I mean, what changed in that in that period of time? Attitudes?
▶ 0:47:08Different leadership style? Well, leadership, uh I don't see, you know, uh so many stuff with the with the Latino community, you know, as you know, you know, 150 to 200 people move from California to Arizona. So, obviously, you know, the numbers is changed because 200 people daily daily move to Arizona. So, you know, Very good.
▶ 0:47:33How transparent and collaborative is communication between the community advisory board which you serve on, Mr. Warshaw, and the Sheriff's Office leadership team? So, normally, basically, we have one meeting every month with the monitor with with the with the board. So, and and I think every 3 months we, you know, all together in in person. Does Mr. Warshaw show up? I see Mr.
▶ 0:47:57Warshaw two times, one dinner and before one event and in the court a couple months ago. Okay, so I'm talking over the past several years, how many times have you actually has he actually attended one of these
▶ 0:48:10Well, I'm in the board for only 1 year. Oh, so you've been And you've seen him twice in the year? Yes. If he's not there, does he have other staff or does he delegate to others?
▶ 0:48:18Yes, we we uh it's one uh it's one person working with him. Uh we have a meeting with with with this lady every month. Yeah.
▶ 0:48:26Someone is there. Fair enough. In your experience, has the community advisory board influenced policy or practice changes within the I mean, are they are they listening to you, the board, the community, as it relates to changes in policy? Uh is it I mean, are you effective? Do you feel like we actually have the ability to make things better because they, the Sheriff's Office, the monitor, they're they're listening to the people?
▶ 0:48:52Well, I don't see the difference in in reality because three in the board attacking me all the time because, you know, I organized this event to the sheriff. This specific week, I received two attacks from one of the the two of the members attacking me by email for why I'm here, why if you you don't represent the whole board. Is the reason because I say, "Yeah, this is my voice." So, uh another another member of the board, uh the husband is activist outside and is attacking me frequently.
▶ 0:49:19So, yesterday in the newspaper, I read a newspaper is attacking me. I'm saying I'm a racist person. Huh. And uh a lot of this stuff. And it's public right now. If you read Prensa Arizona, read that this person attacked me, say I'm the Charlie Kirk person. So, is the reason because I support the sheriff. And this And this is really bad because I meet with the sheriff with with the Latino community. You know, every single Latino outside interested me with the sheriff.
▶ 0:49:47You may have touched upon this, but I want to get a a yes or no from you. Do you believe that with the cooperation of the advisory board and the sheriff's office that the judicial monitor is still necessary? Do you believe No.
▶ 0:49:58still necessary today? It's not
▶ 0:50:00Okay, very good. So, this is not something that could It could be better managed at the local level with community input. You know, you got your board, you got a a sheriff's office, you got everybody coming together. Everybody seems to be working well together. We could just say we don't need any more judicial overreach and because it's it's just costing money and it's unnecessary. I I appreciate that. Mr.
▶ 0:50:23Riches, uh Goldwater Institute's amicus brief uh argues that federalism requires that the county sheriff's office be overseen by the people of the county, not the federal government. In your view, has the more than a decade-long federal monitoring of the sheriff's office violated this principle of local Uh Mr.
▶ 0:50:42Chairman, and Congressman Nells, as indicated in my opening statement, um obviously the initial order is a different question than the continued oversight long after facts and circumstances have changed. And I think in this particular situation, when there is no end to federal oversight, it raises uh principles of federalism. I think Chairman Galvin brought it up that he keeps Warshaw keeps moving or shifting the goal posts, I believe he stated.
▶ 0:51:10And And how does that shifting compliance, the benchmarks, or the indefinite monitoring of the sheriff's office's ability to implement policies based on local priorities? How do they do it when you have this type of overreach? Well, you know, it it's hard to say, and I'm not a particular expert on on that that issue specifically, but I would say that um if there's going to be direction from uh federal oversight to any state or local agency, it should be clear and Um and there shouldn't be circumstances
▶ 0:51:41where it's consistently changing. And And these invoices that they keep receiving, these they believe the taxpayers uh You believe the taxpayers should have access to detailed information showing how monitor-related funds are spent even when those funds are subject to federal court oversight? Uh not only should they, but as a matter of state law, um they have a legal right to that information. Um Arizona's law is abundantly clear on this.
▶ 0:52:06Anytime the government engages in public business or spends taxpayer funds, taxpayers have a right to see what they're doing with that money. Um so, as a result of the federal court orders in this place that has hamstrung taxpayers from receiving information they would otherwise uh have a legal right to receive. Thank you, sir. And And Ms. Lesko, uh in your capacity as vice chair of the uh Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, you interact with the sheriff's office.
▶ 0:52:35Um Chairman Galvin of the Board of Supervisors has described the judicial monitor's oversight as, quote, disseminating decimating the agency with a 26% vacancy rate. I don't know how in the hell he can go out there and perform his job and keep the his his people safe in this county when you got a 20% 6% vacancy rate. Do you share this view of the situation, 26%? Uh Mr. Chair and Mr. Nells, I I do.
▶ 0:53:01It makes it very difficult on the sheriff's department to do their jobs of protecting of protecting citizens. And And Mr. Chair and Mr. Nells, I'd like to add a few things just if you don't mind.
▶ 0:53:16Not only did uh the sheriff's department achieve 100% compliance with required policy changes, but the most recent quarterly reports acknowledge that Latino drivers are not being cited, searched, or detained for longer periods of time at rates different than other drivers in Maricopa County. And for 2 years, annual traffic study analysis found no disparity between white and Hispanic drivers.
▶ 0:53:43In fact, the thing that they keep bringing up is why they can't be in a compliance is these backlogs of complaints against the sheriff's department or the detention officers. But the backlogs have nothing to do with the original court case. I mean, they could be a complaint about a detention officer in a jail. It has nothing to do with racial profiling of Hispanic or Latino [clears throat] drivers.
▶ 0:54:09And so, it's very frustrating, and it's it's a They have to been doing this for years. We've had Republican sheriffs, Democrat sheriffs. In fact, one of the Democratic sheriffs, Sheriff Penzone, he resigned over this. He said that was the reason he resigned. He can't do his job with this federal monitorship. It's just become so burdensome and costly. And that's unfortunate. And I have more questions for you, but I'm going to yield back to the chairman.
▶ 0:54:39I guess we'll have a second round, so I'll get back to you in a few minutes, but thank you. Gentleman Nells, chair recognizes gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for his question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Thank Thank you to witnesses for being here. It's uh a wonderful state. Uh Debbie, it's good to see you again. Uh it's been too long. I think you said it best, 14 years, three or four sheriffs, and millions and millions of dollars, and you're still under this federal oversight regime.
▶ 0:55:08So, I think the for all of us, and maybe even the public, is is why. I mean, to me, if I'm looking at this objectively, you're either not in compliance with a court order from 14 years ago, or we are in an era where you really it's it's duplicative and unnecessary. Would you agree with that? Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. Y- Yes, I agree with it.
▶ 0:55:34I mean, this is what's been so frustrating, and this is why the Maricopa County Board of hired an attorney that's that [clears throat] deals with federal issues like this to file a Rule 60 motion because it's been going on and on and on, and the goal posts keep moving. I have other examples in front of me if you care to hear them
▶ 0:55:56We're going to go in a minute. I want to set this up for you, but
▶ 0:55:58about how how how things have changed. And so, you you know, you you they accomplish one thing, and then the court and the monitor you say, "Oh, here's another thing. Here's another thing. Here's another thing." It seems like it never
▶ 0:56:14game of whack-a-mole. And I think you mentioned Rule 60b, so I think that's important. Mr. Riches, what is Rule 60b for the for the public, for for people who are paying attention, who are here in the room or back home? What is Rule 60b? Uh Mr. Chair, Congressman, it's a rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows a party to get relief uh from an existing order or judgment. So, it's basically just to ask the court to reconsider um the court's orders.
▶ 0:56:38Yeah, hey judge, this is not this is not we we're either in compliance with it, we we've done our task, we don't need to be under this uh prior court order. That's the the thrust of it, right? It It allows a an affected party to seek relief from the court, maybe on an outdated judgment or court order. Is that correct?
▶ 0:56:54Yeah, exactly. And so, one of the things that I would have imagined that a court reviews is the factual basis for the motion, right? What facts today are different than they were maybe in this case 14 years ago. Is that one uh one way in which the courts evaluate the merits of a Rule 60b relief motion?
▶ 0:57:10Yes, certainly.
▶ 0:57:10Okay. And And you mentioned federalism. Federalism also is triggered under Rule 60b, at least as far as federal oversight over state and local issues. Is that also correct? Well, the party can raise, you know, the constitutional arguments, legal arguments, uh and factual developments that have that have occurred [clears throat] that would warrant uh relief from the judgment. So, to the extent uh this raises federalism concerns, and we certainly think it does, a party can certainly raise that in a Rule 60 motion.
▶ 0:57:36And why are courts deferential to federalism concerns as it pertains to maybe federal oversight over a state or local issue? Why is that important? Well, our whole constitutional system is predicated on uh the people uh retaining power for themselves, and and uh the states being the primary repository of the police power. The federal government is a system of limited powers. It only has that power which is expressly delegated to it under the Constitution.
▶ 0:58:04And so, when you have a situation that involves law enforcement, local spending, which ultimately inevit- inevitably involves taxation as well, um those are the sort of matters that our Constitution uh entrusts uh at a different level of uh government than the one that's currently being exercised.
▶ 0:58:22So, do you think I mean, and I would I would say looking at court courts have been hesitant to have this endless federal intervention, if you will, in state and local issues beyond the term of of that is that is reasonably necessary. Is that Is that fair to characterize? I think that is fair to char- characterize. I think in any situation like this, um oversight should be temporary. Uh it should be reviewable, and it should be uh transparent.
▶ 0:58:52Perfect. And so, let's go back, Ms. Lesko. Let's go back to you for a moment. Uh when you look at the the original court order in 2014, there were, I don't know, 194, I think, paragraphs of of uh things that the judge wanted uh paid attention to and addressed. Of the 194 paragraphs, how many have the county fully complied with to date? Do you know? Uh Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. I don't know the exact amount, but I know it's very significant.
▶ 0:59:21174, does that sound about right? It It sounds right to me, but I'd have to check for, you know, for for details from actually the sheriff's department themselves. The The thing is is you're exactly right. This is going on too long and the number of paragraphs that it started with has grown exponentially. And so they keep adding on these requirements to the Sheriff's Department.
▶ 0:59:46And the reason that we filed the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors filed the Rule 60 motion is because the original purpose of the Melendres lawsuit The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is doing a good job and even in many instances, the monitor agrees. The monitor agrees.
▶ 1:00:12They are doing the job that the original purpose of the lawsuit it it's been fulfilled. It's now time to move on and and end this.
▶ 1:00:22Right. So Miss Miss Lesko, I think one of the original things that the court took exact exception with and the monitor as well as that there was an illegal immigration hotline. Is there an illegal immigration hotline today? Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. My understanding is there is not.
▶ 1:00:37Correct. Correct. There was There's There's no triple I unit. There's no That's been attested to of Latino drivers and passengers. There's no detention of Latinos pursuant to attempted enforcement of ASA and AESA. Compliance, I thought this was interesting when I was preparing for this hearing. The first Maybe some of the first reports would it surprise you to sit show that the Sheriff's Office was not in compliance in the early years. Right?
▶ 1:01:07That's That sounds normal. They're kind of getting their feet under them. 30% 40% compliance in early years. And you attested to earlier. What is that compliance today? I don't know. There's so many different paragraphs that I don't know the compliance of all of them. But what I can tell [clears throat] you is that we are in 100% compliance with required policy changes.
▶ 1:01:32The quarterly reports show that there is no significant differences between when you stop a Latino driver versus a white driver. And that's been going on for 2 years. There's no evidence of ongoing civil right violations. There's no new allegations of targeted immigration reform enforcement.
▶ 1:01:52What it seems to have come down to now is just this backlog of complaints against the Sheriff's Department which it's it's not even related. The backlog's not related to the original complaint. It could be like, you know, it could be anything. Like let's say somebody doesn't like a jail detention officer. That has nothing to do with this lawsuit. And so that's why I you know, I I don't work for the Sheriff's Department.
▶ 1:02:19So I don't know all the specifics of which paragraphs have been in compliant, how many, what percentage, but I know it's very They've done a great job and even the monitor himself and the judge himself has said that there is huge improvement and that it really comes down to this backlog now, it appears. No, correct. I think early early just looking for the specific stat.
▶ 1:02:48But in 2014 it looked like 40% 50 2015 reflected 50% or 40% 40.3% [clears throat] compliance with phase one and phase two. That was in 2015. That was right after the order. Right? So at the time there was at least efforts being made 50 40% compliance. But today it's 100%. Right?
▶ 1:03:15And it's been sustained close to 100% for quite some time. Is that's your Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. My understanding is that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is in compliance with many of the paragraphs and there's lots of different paragraphs in this court order. And so and you have to in order to be in compliance, I believe you have to do it for 3 years in a row.
▶ 1:03:43And you know, it's difficult to do and especially when the goalposts keep moving.
▶ 1:03:49you get you get in compliance and then it the goalposts moves. Or in the cases of several of these things, the one that I brought up in my opening statement they were in compliance in 2016 and now all of a sudden they're out of compliance. Even though nothing has changed. And I have other examples of that as well. So I think over the course
▶ 1:04:09It is. And I think over the course is is frustrating for the people too because you're under federal oversight on things that in which you are compliant on. And I think it goes back to the original point of what 60B is. It's a relief for an aggrieved party in this case the county, the Sheriff's Office. It is a relief valve for further duplicative and unnecessary oversight. In your in your legal opinion, Mr.
▶ 1:04:37Riches, do you think that the county has complied with the original order of the court enough to warrant a 60B relief So I'm not fully familiar with the entire arc of the litigation, but I would say that a like this is precisely the reason that Rule 60 that facts have changed, that circumstances have changed and that continuing federal
▶ 1:05:07oversight raises constitutional and democratic accountability problems. This is precisely the sort of circumstance in which that rule allows a party to go and seek relief. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I'm going to have a some second round of questions um later, but I will yield to you, sir. Gentleman yields back. I'll now recognize myself for some questioning and comments. Mr.
▶ 1:05:37Garcia, one of the things that you you mentioned today is that uh other individuals on the community assessment board or whatever we call that, that oversight board have been attacking you because you were willing to come testify today. Is that accurate? I received the invitation last week to come here. I don't receive any details.
▶ 1:06:02So basically the one of the members emailed me to the whole group with five in the group and and and and the monitoring office and two members have talked you know, start to attack me. Why you going? A lot of you know, really bad stuff, you know, not only in and not only by email, but the newspaper Well, we appreciate you being here and
▶ 1:06:30the point that I see that that I'm hearing from you is that the community and the Sheriff's Office are sympathetical. Yes, definitely. 100%. And if the regime continues it's not going to get any better because it's pretty good. If is my good money for a couple people. You know, not for the community. Yeah.
▶ 1:07:00Right. Right. I mean for the community, that's what I'm talking.
▶ 1:07:03Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. And then Mr. Mr. Riches um when you talk when you talk about I won't I won't dwell too much on the 60B aspect, but I will just get to the point of what courts look at when with 60B and you've highlighted it. They're looking at the facts and the law, right?
▶ 1:07:23So in this instance, the law early on the judge made a determination what he felt the constitutional interpretation and application of that law was to the facts that were brought before him. But in your participation in this the lawsuit we now see that there seems to be even on the part of the monitors admission although he does like to move things around
▶ 1:07:53a little bit he's at least what I've read from him indicates that there is not just substantial compliance, there's almost complete and full compliance. And that would be something that normally a court would take into account is the changed factual circumstances when they apply the same law to those facts, right? Mr. Chairman, yes. Yes, exactly. And you have a circumstance now where a party has saying the facts have have changed.
▶ 1:08:22The monitor has essentially conceded near total compliance. And the federal government has also weighed in and said that it's time for the oversight to end. So I think that confluence of factors is certainly an appropriate an appropriate way to support a Rule 60B motion. Well, for this is a question for any of you.
▶ 1:08:44Since since the original court order has there been any modification in the actual court's order over the last 12 12 years? Do Do any of you know that? Well, Mr.
▶ 1:09:02yeah, that I'm not referring to the monitors moving all over the place. I'm talking actually in the in the language of the original order. Any modification? Um Mr. Chair, all I know is there's lots of modifications. I don't know if that's a court I I mean, the monitor works under the federal judge in the court. And so they have changed the goalposts repeatedly. Yes. I'll find out if I can get your exact answer.
▶ 1:09:28Okay, that sounds good. Because uh uh in my looking through this, I I don't know that I recall seeing actual modification. Oh, here we go. Here's So, no no no show
▶ 1:09:38is yes. They've modified it three times. Okay, very good. Thank you. But, where the crux of the issue becomes is is in is the monitors the rather cart blanche way the the monitor has enacting and has moved things around. So, that's that was that was one of my questions on that. Um and I will just say uh Ms.
▶ 1:10:04Lesko, you talked about uh the incentives. And so, I'm going to just talk for just a second about incentives and trade-offs. uh when when you look at incentives and trade-offs, everybody responds to or disincentives. And everybody's making a trade-off on virtually everything that they decide. When you have a monitor that is making a lot of money
▶ 1:10:36um and is making money from multiple jurisdictions, which [clears throat] by the way is contrary to is something I'm going to talk about in a second, but their incentive is not to actually encourage compliance completely and then walk away and let people be free to uh in in their actions.
▶ 1:11:00Their incentive instead is to maintain control and and the economic benefit that they're getting. That's what that's what I see happening here with Mr. And um uh the trade-off that he's making is is Some people would say it's a moral trade-off. And I'll leave that aside.
▶ 1:11:23But but but the other people say he's just making flat-out making a trade-off between finding compliance in Maricopa County and walking away to some other gig and staying here to the gig that he already has where he's going to be continue to make money. That is the trade-off that he's effectively making.
▶ 1:11:42And the impact is those people in this who otherwise they need they need good service from the police and and the And that is in here that's hindered, Um but the other thing is people who have absolutely no say in this at all whatsoever anymore have lost any any ability.
▶ 1:12:05Their trade-off is to stay in Maricopa County where you have a monitor that's imposing his will on the sheriff's department causing mass morale problems, uh lack of retention, and also uh taxes that that we don't even see any accountability for or leave the county. That's effectively what that's effectively what this uh monitor is doing. That's the trade-off.
▶ 1:12:34And that's why it was so important for me. I wanted to hear Mr. Garcia's assessment of what whether trust has been rebuilt in the community. Do you see uh a synergy and a and a cooperation, maybe even a collaboration with the sheriff's department and the Latino community, which was where where the issue arose.
▶ 1:12:54So, that's that's that's why I say if we start looking at that, the trust, we look at the law, and then we look at the trade-offs and incentives, it all points to one thing that the monitors um end. And so, I I'm just going to before I recognize Mr. Nels for a second round of question, I just have to make one more statement cuz as I was listening to you today.
▶ 1:13:19And I By the way, I'm I've kind of set aside my questions because these guys are asking all my questions, but that's But, one the one thing I get here is this this is a type of federal overreach. When I say type, I'm talking about an example or a um it's not like not kind. I mean, this is a type. This is something you can look and say this happens in multiple other areas.
▶ 1:13:46And what that is is that's where the federal uh government comes in to a state or local government ostensibly with a good and they never leave. They never leave, which is why federalism and the and the 10th Amendment have taken a a bad beating uh uh in in uh the last 125 years in my opinion.
▶ 1:14:11So, uh I look at this and I say it is time it is time for the Rule 60B motion to be granted. And it quite frankly is time for this monitor to go on. And uh I'm going to I'm going to end there before I go into Merrick Garland's interpretation of what a monitor should do. Um but right now I'm going to yield and recognize the gentleman from Texas. Uh thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:14:37Um so, this specific case this was had nothing This wasn't a consent decree. This was judicial. Yeah. Yeah, so they were Yeah, I I you know you notice a lot too with this new administration. Uh the Civil Rights Division under the Trump administration, he's closing all the Whether it was right here in Phoenix, uh Trent, New Jersey, Memphis Oklahoma City, Louisiana State Police, Mount Vernon, New York, uh Louisville, Minneapolis.
▶ 1:15:06Think about that, Minneapolis, and what we've seen up I don't know, and I think it's a sad state of affairs. Anybody that's in law enforcement that how has how has law enforcement become so partisan? How Why did we get to where we I mean, when somebody would call the local sheriff's office and say they need help. You know, you're not going to call and say you Democrat or Republican, you pro-life, you pro-choice.
▶ 1:15:30When we book somebody into a county jail, I don't think we ask that question Uh I'll lives over here, conservatives over here, pro-life, pro-choice. But, how did it get to the point where we are at? I mean, I have some opinions as to why we got where we are today, but if if you look at ICE and and border it's we we have a very very divided country.
▶ 1:15:55I think you I think law enforcement is struggling today because quite honestly, I don't know if I'd want one of my daughters or or or a son to even join the ranks anymore. It's just the the ridicule, the number of of officers that have lost their life since I've been in office. I've got a picture of them in on my wall outside my office. I mean, that thing has got to be 30 yd long and and and 10 ft high.
▶ 1:16:20I mean, we're losing hundreds and hundreds of law enforcement over the because I think it's it's so dangerous today because of the the partisanship. It's um And and and where did it all begin? You got to go back and say, "Well, why are we at where we're at?" You could go back to George Floyd. I think that had something to do with it, but I think you could even go back a little further and go back to Trayvon Martin.
▶ 1:16:45And it just seems like we we have leaders and that uh you go to Tim Waltz and others that that want to create the division, they want to create the the chaos. Thinking that their that their side their their their politics is going to win over. I mean, I don't know. I I'm a Second Amendment guy, and I know Andy you are too, and isn't that but I believe the guy has a right to carry a gun at a demonstration or whatever.
▶ 1:17:12But, you're going too far when you get into a physical altercation with law enforcement. What the hell are you doing? Carry a gun at the demonstration. But, if you start getting in the physical altercations with law enforcement, I'm questioning your Well, you ain't going to be able to talk about it, obviously. Uh I I just I I just think that we have to do everything we possibly can to get back to you know, where law enforcement is considered You know, remember the old picture where you see the law enforcement officer and he holds out his hand to a young child.
▶ 1:17:41That's the way we need to get back to that. Because when we have that distrust it just creates chaos. And when you have distrust in law enforcement today, you can see where we're at. It's quite clear. It's every other day in every other city you're seeing what's taking place. And and I think we're better than that. You mentioned the 26% vacancy rate. I can't imagine having that I don't know how many of those are in patrol. I don't know what the you know, or detective CID.
▶ 1:18:09I don't know how many they have, but I can't imagine it's got to be affecting clearance rates. Response times. As the sheriff said, "Hey, by the way, Ms. Lesko, I need more people. I mean, my response times on a 911 a priority one call is now two and a half minutes versus a minute and a half cuz who wants to work here?" And quite honestly, I can't blame if Deputy Joe Snuffy would say, "I may want to go to the county next to me that I don't have all of this oversight.
▶ 1:18:38I don't have to worry about if I say something or if it's even perceived as something silly that all of a sudden now I'm going to have an internal affairs divi you know, question You know what I mean. So, how has that affected morale, response times, if you know any of that, uh clearance rates on Uh thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 1:19:00In my conversations with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, it has affected it a lot because every aspect every whether they are even assigned to traffic stops or not, they have to be trained in this.
▶ 1:19:16There's this whole federal bureaucracy and monitorship, and they're spending the county estimates this is between the cost of trying to achieve what the monitor wants us to do and and the the monitor as as Mr. Chair said it's the county believes it's 350 million dollars so far. That's a lot of money that could be used in hiring more Sheriff's officers.
▶ 1:19:47You know, and even like somebody that's in administration that's not out on the street. They have to be trained in this. Every officer, I can't remember how many things at every traffic stop they have to ask report. It's just so burdensome that you are correct.
▶ 1:20:05Why if if if they could go to another agency a city or or Department DPS Department of Public Safety which is the state patrol here. Why wouldn't they do it if if it's so burdensome? So we have to help Mhm. the Sheriff's office because I totally believe that the government's number one responsibility is protecting the public.
▶ 1:20:32And it's hard to do that when the Sheriff's office has their hands tied behind their back. Yeah. Did we have cameras back then? Back in all this study there were body cameras required by I think I think this is a new system, you know, we have the cameras. Yeah. I think the cameras we capture I mean even even when you make a traffic stop you have to put on there why you stopped them and what you know, are they Hispanic, black, white? I mean you have to list all that.
▶ 1:20:59Something important with the Sheriff's office 35% of the people is Latino. Okay, so you're going to Yeah. make quite a few traffic stops on Latino if it's a majority. You know, a lot of the so I I just got to go back to this and and I and I don't know why it's just on it but it it it seemed was was the Sheriff back then Sheriff Arpaio? Was he using his office maybe it was maybe it wasn't I don't know. Help me out. Was he trying to use his office to enforce federal immigration law? Yes.
▶ 1:21:29Okay. And and I tell you I had the same issue. I mean I'm 4 hours north of the border in Houston, Texas. A lot of people would call me up and say look at them they're over there. Go get them they're over at Larry's Mexican. In the state of Texas I had as a Sheriff right or wrong I had no authority to put somebody in jail that came across the border illegally. I had no authority to do it.
▶ 1:21:57It's like it's a federal government's job to do that and I understood that. Now as the county Sheriff what I had the ability to do is if somebody was doing something wrong and he was not documented and I put him in the county jail well then obviously every person I ever arrested we ever arrested I don't care what color you what your name everybody's name would be entered we'd send it to the ice in Houston.
▶ 1:22:20And within 2 hours within 2 hours they would send me back a report that says I want to put a detainer on this guy this guy this guy this guy. So I wasn't enforcing immigration laws federal immigration. I was forcing Texas law by if the individual committed a state violation law but a Sheriff in the state of Texas doesn't have the authority there's nothing in the penal code in the state of Texas that says I can arrest somebody for being here illegally even though they're illegal.
▶ 1:22:49There was nothing to do it because it just seemed the federal government's job. Now maybe the Sheriff I'm sure he understood all this but it just appears to me you're right this overreach has to stop it's been a but just for my understanding maybe back then a little oversight was warranted and now you've got your building the community outreach and you've got new Sheriff's coming in and and you just have to continue to build but I think this monitor this this gentleman I think he's just feathering his nest.
▶ 1:23:20He he I mean guy's not dumb. You got to give it to him. I just hope the judge is watching this Mr. Chairman that he understands that you know, we don't need this here anymore and you can't you can't tie the hands of this county Sheriff by all this overreach when we have shown the numbers the data that says we're in compliance and you having the budget authority over this county Sheriff you've got to have the ability to number one be a good steward of the funds
▶ 1:23:50right be a good steward to the taxpayers and and help the Sheriff and end this this overreach this bureaucracy and and I I wish you all the best in that and hopefully we can continue be vocal. I think this hearing great job with this Mr. Chairman. Hopefully this hearing will will help this great state and this great county here in Arizona. I yield. Gentlemen yields and now recognize myself for some some questions.
▶ 1:24:18Merrick Garland former attorney general under President Biden in September of 2021 issued um a memo regarding monitor ships of state and local government entities. I don't know if did have any of you seen that before? Okay, so this is good. This is uh you guys are a tabula rasa. I'm going to just tell you what he says and then it's ask if you think that this has been done in this particular case.
▶ 1:24:44Uh one of the things he said is uh you should cap the fees that a monitor Uh has that been the case Mr. Garcia has the monitor's fees capped in this What is the question again? Uh is the monitor's fees capped by the court in in this particular in this in the Melendres case? Yes.
▶ 1:25:08Yes, because we were for example I request you know, to review the the expense and and I don't have access 100% you know, for every detail. Yeah. But is it capped? Yeah. Is it so they say you can't spend more than what 5 million a year attorney So there is no cap they're just reporting to you so I would say. Is it do you know if it's been capped Mr. Riches? Not to my knowledge Mr. Chairman. Um supervisor? Uh thank you Mr. Chair. I do not know for sure if it's capped but how would we know?
▶ 1:25:37We we're not even allowed there's it's my understanding there's no there's no court order that caps it is my understanding. Okay. Um if it if I'm wrong I'll get back to you on it but but we don't even know what he's spending it on. Yes, yeah I in in looking through I didn't see a cap but I could be wrong. But like but it also says Mr. Mr. Garland says the second thing is monitoring is a public service.
▶ 1:26:07Okay, should be shouldn't be feathering your nest. He says they should be structured to use uh to encourage use of pro bono time or reduced rates. have you have you you've seen some of their expenses? Does it look like they're reducing their rates or giving some stuff for free? Mr. Riches have you seen any of this Uh Mr.
▶ 1:26:30Chairman if they're providing pro bono time it would have to be a an awful lot because the the expense invoices we've seen show considerable expenditures 30 million dollars over over the course of the order so I I would think that's unlikely. Ms. Lesko? No, there's no as as Mr.
▶ 1:26:50Riches said it's been over 30 million dollars it's millions of dollars a year we're spending just on this monitor and at one of the court hearings they made a point of flying all of these people that work for the monitors and you know, giving their bios of you know, anyway it's a lot of expense. Thank you.
▶ 1:27:12Nobody nobody said I'm I'm here and I'm going to work at least half the time or at least 2% of the time pro bono. Did he say that? No, they did not. They makes me wonder if they're lawyers actually. That's that's the way lawyers Um he he also says the the lead monitor uh participation should be restricted from participating in multiple monitor in other words
▶ 1:27:43it's it's one and done. so the lead monitor should serve on no more than one monitoring team at a time. is this monitor working on multiple ones Mr. Garcia? I see only one person, you know. You know, I'm working very close with one person. Mr. Warshaw himself you've not you've seen him twice, right? Yes, twice. Yeah. And and Mr. Riches um is Mr.
▶ 1:28:11Warshaw involved in more than one monitor ship? Yes, it's my understanding he's a monitor in in other jurisdictions as well. At the same time? At the same Ms. Lesko? Mr. Chair it is my understanding he he does this in more than one location more than in Arizona and in fact he's been doing it for 25 years in California on one case. Yeah. Um so here we go.
▶ 1:28:37This is another one I think is Uh term limits for monitors should be um included in a decree. Um I don't is there I'll go back this way before we get we're going to start this time with you Ms. Lesko. Is there to your knowledge is there a term limit on Mr. Warshaw's service as monitor in the Melendres case? Uh Mr. Chair I am not aware of any term for him. Mr. Riches?
▶ 1:29:07Nor am I Mr. Chairman and I think this gets to one of the important points that not only should the federal oversight be temporary but any one specific monitor um should likely also be temporary so there's not a circumstance where a monitor might be incentivized to continue the oversight. Mr. Garcia, do you do you do you know if there's a term limit on Mr. Warschaw? No, no term limit. Okay. Um we'll go Ms. Lesko again.
▶ 1:29:34The the next one is uh work should be uh publicly What do you think? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, as we've testified, we we the county can't even see what he's spending his money on. It goes to the court and only the court.
▶ 1:29:55And um I've been at uh one of the public community meetings and asked uh the public asked actually some of the people that are here today asked like what are you spending this money on and they didn't answer. We've asked, they don't answer. It only goes through the court. So the public does not know. Public Mr. Riches, have you seen anything different than that? No, Mr. Chairman and that's um that's one of our very primary concerns in this case.
▶ 1:30:23Um under state law, it is abundantly clear taxpayers have a right to this information. The federal FOIA would allow access to this information. The judiciary isn't subject to the FOIA. Um it is a central component of democratic government that citizens must know what their government is up to and in this case Maricopa County taxpayers simply have no idea because the monitor hasn't disclosed it and the orders in this case have prevented its disclosure. Mr.
▶ 1:30:49Garcia, have you seen are are documents easily publicly uh of this monitorship of Mr. Warschaw? Okay. Um keep going. All right. So um the monitor should uh and I've skipped some of it because we could just go on all day about about the stuff but let's go to this one.
▶ 1:31:19Community engagement begins with the selection of the monitoring team. Do you know if you know if the community community was consulted on the appointment of Mr. Warschaw? I do not know. Yeah. I Just uh but going on from there um the priority according to Merrick Garland was that that um a monitor should put a premium on stakeholder involvement.
▶ 1:31:50Mr. Garcia, you sit on the the community oversight. Uh do you feel like this monitor Mr. Warschaw has put a premium on community Let's get to these here. This cuz this one I think is actually very interesting. You should require a hearing to assess termination after no more than 5 years.
▶ 1:32:20These these should not last longer than 5 years because it according to Mr. Mr. Garland, you want to incentivize both the the parties that are being monitored and the monitor to get this thing done, make the changes and corrections and move on. Well, I don't know, Ms. Lesko. Uh are you aware of any termination hearing after 5 years? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:32:45No, in fact it's been going on for a lot longer than that and there's no end in sight. Mr. Riches? No, Mr. Chairman. I'm not aware of that. Uh again, this gets to the temporary and reviewable components of this. This oversight should be temporary and the decisions should be reviewable both of the monitor and and of the court. Mr.
▶ 1:33:07Garcia, are you aware of of any additional hearing um that had taken place from the time of the original order to determine uh to assess termination of the of the no, you know, I I think you know, it's it's it's time to finish this, you know.
▶ 1:33:26It's it's too much money, you know, it's too much time, you know, and and when you put the money in the right place, you know. Well, so thank you and and in the uh he says you could use a partial So you could come in and say, well, they've complied here but we have our finding compliance else here. Uh what's Ms. Lesko, do you know if there was a um which proposed even a partial termination of some of the monitors review targets?
▶ 1:34:00I am not aware. Mr. Riches? No, Mr. Chairman. I'm not aware. I know in the Rule 60 motion there was a request that some of the oversight components be stopped. Mr. Garcia, you were? Okay. Um Well, I am going to thank you for your answering questions.
▶ 1:34:18I I think it's it's painfully obvious that um Merrick Garland's uh suggestions and guidance on monitorships of consent decrees and and in this case a judgment and judicial judgment have gone largely unheeded. And uh that's a problem. Uh for the record, I'm going to put in some UCs here.
▶ 1:34:44Um this is an amendment number two to lease agreement between Lurie Investors and Maricopa County. This is on behalf of Mr. Warschaw that amendment to that contract. Uh without objection. This one is uh This is one out of uh paying for Warschaw and Associates.
▶ 1:35:06This is uh for professional services of $212,551 payment uh uh net net 15 by the way uh on August 1st, 2023 without This is a letter from uh PORAC on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California uh uh encouraging that the monitorship come to a close
▶ 1:35:37without objection. This is a letter from the National Association of Police Organizations encouraging that the monitorship come to an end without objection. This is uh a piece title entitled DOJ supports call to end Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Oversight Case without objection. Supervisors call for end of $353 million oversight of Sheriff's without objection.
▶ 1:36:03This is County Attorney says monitor has financial incentive to continue MCSO without objection. It goes back to my thing about incentives, right? Uh this one says a monitor uh keeps moving goal posts for MCSO officers putting our safety at risk without objection. And this is one a citizen's plea for relief, balance and local accountability in Maricopa County without objection.
▶ 1:36:31And this is a letter to the Honorable uh Pam Bondi Attorney General of the United States uh written by me uh admitted without objection. And with that, I am prepared to yield and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina uh for his second round of Uh thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 1:36:59And I I think it just I had to step out for a minute but I think you covered Did you cover the the Merrick Garland's
▶ 1:37:06Okay. Pretty thoroughly. That was going to be my second round. That was thorough. I think and I'll just I'll I'll yield back here in a minute but I think in every which way when I look at the merits of this case and what the county has filed with their 60B relief supported by any number of groups including the DOJ the elements are satisfied meaning that the county and the sheriff's office have complied substantially for quite some with what was intended in the court order in 2014.
▶ 1:37:35They have complied not just on the on the surface but deep structural changes within the department. They have been uh validated by the monitors reporting. They've been validated by other reports that exist out there that are independent of the monitor and the county. When [clears throat] I look at the federalism concerns um those are those speak to themselves. The federal government is not here to micromanage every aspect of state and local government. That is not their function.
▶ 1:38:05The Constitution limits the authority given to the federal government. And the 10th Amendment is very clear. Those that are not enumerated in this Constitution are left to the states. And so while federal oversight and and uh is maybe warranted, judge orders that. These are routine uh sometimes in our in our country. Uh in this you have a a 14-year-old well, over 10-year-old case uh where you've had substantial compliance by the county for a long time.
▶ 1:38:34They've spent over $300 in compliance costs. Shouldn't that money be better left by the people who are elected by the citizens of this area to be spent on I don't know, further More police, other other initiatives within the county? Doesn't that make more sense than this continuing check-the-box?
▶ 1:38:59Uh look, if if you go back to 2015 and some of the data that I um 50% compliance at that point. Okay. That's a substantial start. But we're not quite there yet. The county's not quite there yet. But now you have 100% seems to be reviewing this. And so why must the county continue to endure this?
▶ 1:39:25Uh both from an operational standpoint on what they're doing, also a federalism component which I think is critical to what who we are in our republic. I think uh the chairman raised up some comments on maybe some oversight of monitors that has not been the case. And Mayor Garland, who I didn't agree with much, I didn't think he was that effective at all as an attorney general, he may have gotten this right, right? Where there's some disclosure that's required by the monitor. There's some public input that's required on the selection of the monitor. There are term limits to the monitor.
▶ 1:39:55This is not an cash grab of of continuing to say, oh, yep, they're doing their work. Here's a bill for $250,000 or whatever the case is. The monitor is not a taxpayer of this county. The monitor is not a voter of this county. The monitor has has done his job and it's time to end. I hope that the 60B motion is successful. I think it is is beyond and past time to end because again, the federal government doesn't need to micromanage every aspect of this.
▶ 1:40:24The sheriff's office should be commended for their hard work. I know it probably wasn't easy um to have this oversight constantly on you. Uh but in many cases and things that I've read, it sounds like they've done a dang good job at it. So it's time for this to end and I hope that it does. Appreciate you being here and your involvement in the community. I think that's huge. That nexus uh between the community and police is is massive. Uh it's it's underrated at times, but it works very successfully.
▶ 1:40:52And so you being a part of that, part of that discussion um is is is critically important. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentlemen yields. Chair recognizes Mr. for for 2 minutes.
▶ 1:41:04Thank you, sir. I agree uh with what you just stated, Mr. Fry. I think Mr. Garcia, I think you you are a key uh here uh in my humble opinion in its success, the the the sheriff's office and it's an office. You know, I always say department, it's an office. He's a duly elected con- So he he's it's sheriff's The sheriff's office is complying with the judicial orders. It's been doing that for years. The documentation that that is there.
▶ 1:41:32Um and you stated, I'm paraphrasing, the citizens are satisfied. You you great, right? Everybody seems to be pretty pleased. And and I believe your working group and if it's just coming from elected officials, I don't think that's going to work.
▶ 1:41:47If it's coming from the working group, if if coming from the people that reside in this county that are pleased now to see this significant improvement change at the sheriff's office, I think that should hold significant significant weight in the elimination of this federal program. And I just think having you more involved with this, letters to the judge, everything else, I I think that's the key to your success. And I wish you all the best of luck. So thank you, sir. I yield back.
▶ 1:42:17Gentlemen That concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today and I I must point out that uh we invited our colleagues uh on the Democrat side of the aisle to appear uh and to invite witnesses today and they opted to not participate in this uh subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, all members have will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record.
▶ 1:42:48Without objection, hearing's adjourned.