MCSO inflated oversight costs, audit shows. ACLU of Arizona calls it 'really troubling'

For the last several months, there has been mounting pressure from Republican leaders in Maricopa County to end court oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchel; County Supervisor Thomas Galvin; and gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs are among those who've spoken out.

MCSO has been under the watch of a court-appointed monitor since 2013, after a judge found it had racially profiled Latinos and unlawfully engaged in federal immigration enforcement.

The findings were reminiscent of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s immigration raids on car washes and restaurants, and traffic stops of Latinos for “broken tail lights.”

In the dozen years since, however, MCSO made progress toward the reforms the judge has ordered — but never met every benchmark. Republican leaders have been arguing MCSO has done enough, and that the court-appointed monitor is milking county taxpayers by dragging the process out.

The Sheriff’s Office billed the county $226 million for costs related to the Melendres case, which began in 2007 when Latino drivers sued MCSO for racially profiling them during traffic stops.

A new independent audit said that number was highly inflated — by $163 million.

MCSO told KJZZ they’ve found discrepancies in the report and that some major costs weren’t included in it. Agency officials said they were reviewing it themselves.

The Sheriff’s Office also told KJZZ they question why costs made to the monitor team totaling $34 million, as well as legal expenses incurred over the past decade, weren’t included in the audit. They said they’re reviewing it and plan to address it in the future.

ACLU of Arizona Executive Director Victoria Lopez told The Show that the report lays bare the political motivations behind the Sheriff’s Office's claims.

Full conversation

VICTORIA LOPEZ: I think our response to the audit was surprise. We did not expect the level of lack of accountability on some of the problems that this audit pointed out.

We had been expecting this audit. You know, the court ordered that this happened last fall, so we've been anticipating that there would be a report. But you know, given the span, I mean, this report covers 10 years of this case.

And so the issues that it points to around, you know, misstating where funds were being used, that they were not being appropriately allocated to the Melendres case over such a long period of time is pretty surprising and really troubling.

LAUREN GILGER: $163 million misattributed to the case, essentially. And this comes as there's been a big push from officials, from, you know, members of the County Board of Supervisors to increasingly kind of call for the end to this based on that cost.

I wonder what you make of that argument and the approach that was taken, making it about money.

LOPEZ: Yeah, I mean, listen, this case has been going on for over a decade, so it's important for people, for residents of the county, for people in the state to be asking, what is going on? Why is this taking so long? What are the resources that are being put into this decade-plus litigation now? People should absolutely be asking questions.

What is disappointing and frustrating is that those questions were being turned for a very clear political purpose. Whether it was to end the reforms prematurely, whether it was to attack oversight by a federal court. And that really doesn't serve anyone.

GILGER: So let's talk about where we are now then and where you think this leaves us going forward, right. Like, even if the costs were inflated, as this audit says, they were, and we're waiting for a response from the county Sheriff's [Office] on that. They're looking at the numbers themselves.

Do you think there's still an argument to be made that it's, it's been a decade, that's been a really long time, that it has cost taxpayers a lot of money either way and that the department is getting pretty close to compliance by all measures. Is it time, is it nearly time for this to come to a close?

LOPEZ: Yeah. I mean, there are people in the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office that have been making progress toward the court-ordered reforms. And we see that. There are people within Maricopa County Sheriff's Office who are doing the really hard work.

It's not done. There are clearly areas where the Sheriff's Office needs to continue to make those improvements, and those improvements need to be in full and effective compliance for three years under the court order.

GILGER: Three years.

LOPEZ: That's where we're at. Right. That is what the court order spells out. Now, the fact that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has failed to comply fully over the last decade-plus falls back on them, and it requires them to continue to push to make that full reform.

It's a shame for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, for residents of the county who want to see, and the plaintiff class who want to see these reforms accomplished and for this litigation to be completed.

But it can't happen if the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office continues to be found in contempt of court, if they continue to misallocate resources that should be going to achieving the court-ordered reforms, and if they fail to build community trust.

GILGER: What's at stake here for you in this? This goes back to racial profiling in traffic stops under a sheriff three sheriffs ago. Sheriff Joe Arpaio, obviously. I mean, like, what do you want the law enforcement in Maricopa County to look like when and if this department does reach compliance? How big of a difference do you think that could make for residents?

LOPEZ: The actions that have happened in the past were horrific. We're talking about people who were unlawfully arrested, unlawfully detained, were separated from their families. They lost their businesses, they lost their homes. It was horrible for the plaintiff class and for the Latino community in Maricopa County. And that culture within the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office persists for some in the community. And that's an important part of policing.

GILGER: This is all happening, Victoria, from a case that was decided a decade ago. And since then, we've seen a real political shift in the country and the political climate around immigration, around law enforcement, really change. The Trump administration closed its investigation into the Phoenix Police Department that the Biden Department of Justice had carried out, which had similarly been accused of civil rights violations.

I wonder, do you think that if this case were to happen today, it would go the same way?

LOPEZ: I mean, at the ACLU of Arizona, when we see a civil rights violation and constitutional violations like we've seen here in Maricopa County, you know, that is what we do, right. Like, we will investigate. We will make sure that government officials who are, you know, acting in an unconstitutional manner are held to account.

So I don't know if it would go the same way, but I do think that there are people and organizations and community members and advocates who would stand up and speak out and make sure that our law enforcement agencies, government officials more broadly, are being held accountable.

GILGER: What do you see the long term impact of this case being in this political climate? Like, we just saw the Supreme Court issue a decision out of Los Angeles, right, that basically allows for this kind of practice to happen by at least federal immigration agents in that one area. And that could be expanded in the future.

The environment around this, as I said, has changed so much. Does it feel like in that climate this case matters more to you because of that in the future? Does it matter less? I wonder if, because this is so much about setting precedent and sort of giving other law enforcement guideposts around the country. What purpose does this case serve at this point?

LOPEZ: I mean, we have to look at the origin story of the Melendres case, right? The Melendres case came up because the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under Sheriff Arpaio was violating people's constitutional rights through community raids, worksite raids, sweeps, traffic stops that specifically targeted Latino community members for immigration enforcement purposes. And that origin story of this case resonates so much in this current political social climate that we're in right now.

And Melendres stands for the principle, the legal principle, that unconstitutional policing, racial profiling is not OK. Our law enforcement agencies should not be targeting people because of the way they look, the language they speak, how they dress, where they work. And that is an important, not just an important principle in the law, but it is an important thing that bears out in people's actual lives and serves as a protection for all of our constitutional rights.

GILGER: Do you see this as a backstop going forward?

LOPEZ: Melendres is a bit of a backstop. I mean, we've seen that with the legacy of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arpaio, Sheriff Arpaio in particular, we saw that what happened here in Maricopa County served as a blueprint for the Trump administration.

And the Melendres litigation does serve as a backstop, at least here in Maricopa County, to say that law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies, should not be engaging in immigration enforcement. That it, in fact, is very much contrary to the purpose of law enforcement and keeping all of us safe in our communities.

GILGER: OK, I'll leave it there. Victoria Lopez, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona, joining us. Victoria, thank you.

LOPEZ: Thank you so much, Lauren.

GILGER: The Sheriff's Office also told us they question why costs made to the monitor team totaling $34 million as well as legal expenses incurred over the past decade were not included in this audit. They say they're reviewing it and will address it in the future.

The MCSO issued the following statement:

“We have found discrepancies within the Monitor's budget analyst report, which we are continuing to review and will address in the future. However, if we accept their report’s stated total expense of $62 million, it is unclear why the costs paid to the Monitor Team — totaling $34 million to-date (more than half of the reported expense) — and the legal expenses incurred over the past decade were excluded. These two significant and undisputed expenses were not included in the report.”