Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Anne Lai (pro hac vice)

alai@law.uci.edu
Sameer Ashar (pro hac vice)
sashar@law.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine School
of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
Telephone: (949) 824-9894
Facsimile: (949) 824-2747
Hector Diaz (SBA No. 020965)
hector.diaz@quarles.com
Sarah R. Anchors (SBA No. 025344)
sarah.anchors@quarles.com
Edward J. Hermes (SBA No. 030529)
edward.hermes@quarles.com
Jose A. Carrillo (SBA No. 030526)
jose.carrillo@quarles.com
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Renaissance One
Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
Telephone: (602) 229-5200
Jessica Karp Bansal (pro hac vice)

jbansal@ndlon.org
Emilou MacLean (pro hac vice)
emi@ndlon.org
National Day Laborer Organizing
Network
675 S. Park View St., Ste. B
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: (213) 380-2214
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

(Additional attorneys for Plaintiffs listed
on next page)
16
17
18
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
20
21
Puente Arizona, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
22
23
v.
24
Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jessica Myers Vosburgh (pro

hac vice)
jvosburgh@ndlon.org
Network
2104 Chapel Hill Rd.
Birmingham, AL 35216
Telephone: (215) 317-1481
Daniel J. Pochoda (SBA No. 021979)
dpochoda@acluaz.org
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Telephone: (602) 650-1854
Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado (SBA No.
027076)
rybarra@stanfordalumni.org
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra

Maldonado, PLC
2701 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. A
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 910-4040
Cindy Pnuco (pro hac vice)

cpanuco@hadsellstormer.com
Joshua Piovia-Scott (pro hac vice)
jps@hadsellstormer.com
Dan Stormer (pro hac vice)
dstormer@hadsellstormer.com
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (626) 585-9600
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
2
3
No.
THE FEDERAL SCHEME GOVERNING EMPLOYMENT OF

UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.
5
6
In his signing statement for the

Immigration Reform and Control Act
(IRCA), President Ronald Reagan
observed that IRCA was a truly . . .
bipartisan effort, representing extensive
and considered deliberations by
Congress.
PUENTE P 000361-000365 [Lai

Decl.1 Ex. 1] (Signing Statement
reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 58561).
In devising the federal scheme

governing the employment of
undocumented immigrants, Congress
anticipated some individuals might
respond to the verification system by
relying on false information or
documents. At a Senate hearing in 1981,
then Acting Commissioner of the
Immigration and Nationality Service
Doris Meissner testified that [t]he
Department of Justice recognizes the
likelihood that with employer sanctions
there will be a significant increase in the
use of fraudulent documentation by
illegal aliens[.]
PUENTE P 000418-423, 428, 430

[Lai Decl. Ex. 2] at 12, 14 (excerpts
from The Knowing Employment of
Illegal Immigrants: Hearing before
the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Refugee Policy of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary).
During the debates about IRCA, cosponsor Senator Alan Simpson from
Texas stated that document fraud was
something that all of us have paid close
attention to and that the immigration
bill provides for this reality by
imposing civil and criminal penalties for
such fraud.
PUENTE P 000366-368 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 3] (excerpts from 132 Cong. Rec.
S16879-01).
In its worksite enforcement efforts, U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) has prioritize[d] the criminal
prosecution of employers who
knowingly hire undocumented workers .
. . or facilitate document or benefit
fraud. Between 2003 and 2012, ICE
brought 20,631 administrative charges
as compared to 5,131 criminal charges.

Ex. 4] at 3, 6-7 (CRS Report).
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Supporting Evidence
10
Statement of Fact
27
28
Declaration of Anne Lai In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary

Judgment filed concurrently herewith.
1
Recognizing that enforcement actions

against workers might impede [the
Department of Labor (DOL)s] ability
to gain the trust of illegal aliens who
may be the victims of labor violations
and potential witnesses against
employers, the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the DOL to avoid conflicts in
worksite enforcement activities.

Ex. 4] at 10 (CRS Report); PUENTE
P 000369-373 [Lai Decl. Ex. 5] at 1
(Revised Memorandum of
Understanding between the
Departments of Homeland Security
and Labor Concerning Enforcement
Activities at Worksites).
ICE guidance states that it will exercise

prosecutorial discretion not to deport
individuals who are engaged in
protected activity to vindicate labor
rights.

Ex. 6] at 2 (ICE Memorandum:
Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain
Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs).
Federal officials recently created an

Interagency Working Group for the
Consistent Enforcement of Federal
Labor, Employment and Immigration
Laws to ensure that unscrupulous
parties do not attempt to misuse
immigration enforcement or labor laws
to thwart or manipulate worker
protections or labor and immigration
enforcement.
PUENTE P 000377 [Lai Decl. Ex. 7]

(Fact Sheet).
The Judiciary Committee Report for

IRCA noted that it was not the intention
of the law to undermine or diminish in
any way labor protections in existing
law, or to limit the powers of federal or
state labor relations boards, labor
standards agencies, or labor arbitrators
to remedy unfair practices committed
against undocumented employees for
exercising their rights[.]

Ex. 8] at 58 (Excerpts from H.R. Rep.
No. 99682, pt. 1).
In 1994, the United States, Mexico and

Canada signed the North American
Agreement on Labor Cooperation
(NAALC) to [p]rovid[e] migrant
workers in a Partys territory with the
same legal protection as the Partys
nationals in respect of working
conditions.
PUENTE P 000394-000395 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 9] (NAALC, Annex 1 11).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PASSAGE OF H.B. 2779 AND H.B. 2745.

10
In 2007, Arizona enacted House Bill

2779 (H.B. 2779), also known as the
Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA).
Section 1 amended A.R.S. 13-2009 to
28
2
PUENTE P 000001-000011 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 10] (certified House
Engrossed Bill H.B. 2779, 1).
create a new ground of aggravated

identity theft for use of the information
of another personreal or fictitious
with the intent to obtain employment.
__
1
2
3
11
The sponsors of H.B. 2779 included

then-Representatives Russell Pearce,
John Kavanagh, Ray Barnes and thenSenator Robert Burns, among others.
PUENTE P 0000012-000030 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 11] (certified H.B. 2779 as
introduced).
12
In 2008, Arizona enacted House Bill

2745 (H.B. 2745). Section 1 amended
A.R.S. 13-2008 to expand the offense
of non-aggravated identity theft to target
the use of identifying information with
the intent to obtain or continue
employment.
PUENTE P 000012-000030 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 11] (certified House
Engrossed Bill H.B. 2745, 1).
13
An official summary of H.B. 2745

prepared by the Arizona Legislature
notes that H.B. 2745 made . . . changes
to the Legal Arizona Workers Act,
including provisions regulating
employment by unauthorized
immigrants.
PUENTE P 012638-41, PUENTE P

012776-78 [Lai Decl. Ex. 12]
(certified summary of H.B. 2745).
14
The sponsors of H.B. 2745 included

then-Representatives Pearce, Kavanagh,
and Barnes, among others.
PUENTE P 0000124-000134 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 13] (certified H.B. 2745 as
introduced).
15
During a House Government Committee

hearing on H.B. 2779 on February 20,
2007, Pearce, in his role as sponsor
promoting the bill, stated his view that
the government needed to do more about
people crossing the border illegally and
that If they didnt come overnight, they
wont go home overnight. But attrition
starts through enforcement.
PUENTE P 000101 [Lai Decl. Ex.

14] (transcript and recording of
Senate Appropriations Committee
Hearing, H.B. 2779).
16
According to an April 2006 Center for

PUENTE P 000147-000150 [Lai
Immigration Studies article circulated by Decl. Ex. 15].
Pearce, the attrition through
enforcement strategy aims to shrink
the illegal population and had different
components. One of them focused on
ending misuse of Social Security and
IRS identification numbers, which
illegal immigrants use to secure jobs . . .
.
17
Pearce believes that, after H.B. 2779

PUENTE P 007517-18, Ex. 215 to
passed, tens of thousands of illegals left Pearce Dep. (introduced at 16:23-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the state, and that the Courts

preliminary injunction in the Puente
case threw American workers . . . under
the bus.
20:25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 25] (explaining

his statement in the op-ed that
attrition by enforcement works was
intended to refer to the [i]llegal
employment of those not legally in
the country under federal law).
18
The final Senate Fact Sheet for H.B.

2779 lists various provisions to address
the Employment of Unauthorized
Aliens.

Ex. 16] (certified Senate Amended
Fact Sheet for H.B. 2779).
19
In an email alert circulated by Pearce,

the identity theft provisions of H.B.
2745 were described as giving Sheriff
Joe and other law enforcement officials
the additional tools they need to go after
the fraud existing in the employment
verification system.
PUENTE 005121-26, Ex. 185 to

Kavanagh Dep. [Lai Decl. Ex. 26].
20
H.B. 2745 included a provision that

made it a Class 4 felony for employers
to knowingly accept the identity of
another person for the purpose of
determining whether the individual
who presented that identity information
has the legal authorization under federal
law to work in the United States as
described and determined under the
processes and procedures under 8 United
States Code Section 1324a. This was
later made a Class 3 felony in 2014.
PUENTE P 000012-30 [Lai Decl. Ex.

11] (certified House Engrossed Bill
H.B. 2745, 1); PUENTE P 01258083 [Lai Decl. Ex. 17] (House
Engrossed Bill H.B. 2639).
21
In a May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of

the Whole hearing on H.B. 2779, cosponsor Sen. Burns urged the
Committee to not adopt an amendment
that would reduce the penalty for a
violation of the worker identity
provision, stating that, though the issue
of whether the penalty fits the crime is . .
. a worthwhile debate, legislators
should not engage in it because adopting
the amendment would be viewed as a
weakening of our opposition to illegal
immigration[.]

Senate Committee of the Whole
22
During the same May 23, 2007 Senate

Committee of the Whole hearing on
H.B. 2779, Senator Tom OHalloran
stated his intent sure unauthorized
workers would be charged with a serious

Senate Committee of the Whole
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
enough crime to guarantee they stay in

jail and never be allowed to be
citizens of the United States again.
1
2
23
In an April 3, 2007 Senate

Appropriations Committee Hearing,
Pearce states, in response to a questions
from then-Senator John Huppenthal, that
Arizonas major crime problems are all
related to illegal immigration. In a 2008
message to educate the public about a
ballot initiative that he believed would
undercut the LAWA, Pearce writes #1
LURE IS JOBS AND ILLEGAL
EMPLOYERS; VIOLENT CRIME
FOLLOWS ILLEGAL ALIEN
CROWD. He continues,
IMMIGRANT GANG MEMBERS
RARELY MAKE A LIVING AS
GANGSTERS, THEY ARE WORK[sic]
CONSTRUCTION, AUTO REPAIR,
FARMING, LANDSCAPING, AND
LOS[sic] SKILLED JOBS, DRUGS,
HOME INVASIONS, FALSE
DOCUMENTS.

Hearing, H.B. 2779); email from
Russell Pearce, Ex. 249 to Pearce
Dep. (introduced at 196:23-197:14)
[Lai Decl. Ex. 162].
24
During the House Government

Committee hearing on H.B. 2779 on
February 20, 2007, Pearce also
explained that state action was necessary
because the Feds have not done their
job to quell what he described as a
national epidemic of unlawful
immigration. He noted that members
should not wait while we watch the
destruction of our country and the
destruction of neighborhoods, and that
[Arizona] need[s] to step up to the
plate.

25
During the May 23, 2007 Senate Third

Reading of H.B. 2779, then-Senator
Chuck Gray stated that he was voting to
support H.B. 2779 because it advances
the cause of protecting our citizens
against something that the federal
government wont do.

Senate Third Reading of H.B. 2779).
26
In signing H.B. 2779 into law, thenGovernor Janet Napolitano stated

because of federal inaction, Arizona had
no choice but to take strong action to
discourage the further flow of illegal
immigration through our borders.

21] (H.B. 2779 Signing Letter).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
Pearce had been trying to get an

employer sanctions law in Arizona for
many years before he was succeeded in
getting H.B. 2779 signed into law. One
of the predecessor bills to H.B. 2779
was House Bill 2577 (H.B. 2577),
which passed the Legislature in 2006 but
was vetoed by the Governor.
28
Section 6 of H.B. 2577 provided that

Arizonas forgery statute, A.R.S. 1323] (certified Conference Engrossed
2002, would be expanded to include the Bill H.B. 2557, 6).
offense of falsely making or altering a
written instrument that purports to be a
document that fulfills the requirements
for establishing identity, or eligibility to
work in the United States pursuant to the
federal Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986 and that is used to obtain
employment.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
THE COUNTY DEFENDANTS ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND

PRACTICES.
29
Shortly after passage of H.B. 2779, in

late 2007 the MCSO and MCAO began
communicating about how they would
enforce the new employer sanctions law,
including the ID theft provision of the
statute.
MCAO 025288, Ex. 45 to Kratovil

[Lai Decl. Ex. 79]; Arpaio Dep. at
82:10-22 [Lai Decl. Ex. 53].
30
Beginning in January, a standing

committee of members of the MCSO
and MCAO began meeting regularly to
discuss tips about businesses employing
undocumented immigrants and various
investigations were proceeding.
MCAO 025782-818, Ex. 47 to

Kratovil Dep. (introduced at 185:14186:20) [Lai Decl. Ex. 80]; MCAO
025739-74, Ex. 28 to Kratovil Dep.
(introduced at 99:8-102:1) [Lai Decl.
Ex. 76] at MCAO 025764-66; MCAO
(introduced at 117:13-16) [Lai Decl.
Ex. 77] at MCAO 025819-20;
Kratovil Dep. 118:24-119:11, 204:7205:17 [Lai Decl. Ex. 73]; Brockman
Dep. 34:8-10, 78:17-79:18 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 33]; Ames Dep. at 13:11-14:7,
21:22-22:6, 25:8-20 [Lai Decl. Ex.
98] (testimony from prosecutor who
handled a large number of identity
theft in employment cases).
31
The regular meetings between MCSO

and MCAO lasted until at least May
2010, after which point the agencies
continued to meet about investigations
Kratovil Dep. at 245:8-11 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 73]; Brockman Dep. at 58:2359:21 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33]; WhelanGonzales Dep. at 71:13-74:6 [Lai
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Hearing, H.B. 2779) (stating how this
was Pearces sixth year of running
employer sanctions and how the year
before was the first year we got it to
the Governor); PUENTE P 00008182 (H.B. 2557 Veto Letter) [Lai Decl.
Ex. 22].
28
6
on an as needed basis.
Decl. Ex. 64]
32
The MCAO and MCSO developed a

strategy of initially targeting
undocumented employees for arrest and
prosecution, and then examining their
personnel files and trying to see if the
files or the employees themselves would
reveal information about their employer.
Kratovil Dep. at 108:10-110:12 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 73]; Montgomerys 2nd
Supp. Resp. to Pls. Interrogatory No.
4 [Lai Decl. Ex. 27] at 14-14; MCAO
Ex. 76] at MCAO 025767-69; MCAO
Ex. 77] at MCAO 025820-21;
Brockman 82:8-12 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33];
MCSO1104267-69, Ex. 76 to
Brockman Dep. (introduced at 47:149:9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 34]
33
The tips that worksite search warrant

operations would originate from were
usually about undocumented immigrants
working.

Decl. Ex. 73] (explaining her
statement that most of the
investigations from citizen complaints
[discussed in the meetings between
MCAO and MCSO] are handled as
criminal investigations of the crimes
of ID theft and forgery); Brockman
Dep. at 91:16-94:4 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33]
(noting that he could not recall ever
coming across a case where someone
used a false ID for employment to
pass a criminal background check).
34
For example, an April 1, 2010 tip

received by Sheriff Arpaio and
forwarded to Sgt. Cesar Brockman
stated: Im thankful that you are our
sheriff. . . . Illegals are taking over our
country and you are doing a lot to stop
it. . . You truly are an American hero
and making Arizona a little safer every
day. . . . I also work at Carls Jr. . . . and
I have a feeling about half of the staff is
illegal. MCSO deemed this tip
sufficiently valid that Sgt. Brockman
followed up on it, though the person
providing the tip did not respond to his
call.
MELC645258-59, part of Ex. 87 to

Brockman Dep. (introduced at
introduced at 123:16-124:8) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 37]; Brockman Dep. at
120:13-124:2 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33]
(stating that this tip did not suggest
racial profiling to him, even though
there was no information as to why
the tipster had a feeling that about
half the staff was illegal, because
sometimes people dont express
themselves clearly).
35
A July 1, 2009 tip, sent to

illegalimmigration@mcso.maricopa.gov
complained that a company had many
illegal immigrants working at it, and
that I dont [sic] think it is right that
they continue to work illegal aliens
despite the law and feel that in doing so,
they are taking jobs away from lawful

123:16-124:8) [Lai Decl. Ex. 37].
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
immigrants and citizens and this is

hurting our state.
1
2
36
An October 14, 2010 tip stated: First of

all I want to congratulate you on the
excellent job you are doing fighting
illegal immigration. . . . I am writing you
to make you aware that housekeeping
employees at the Days Inn Hotel . . . are
using counterfeit identity documents to
secure jobs. The manager . . . is fully
aware of this illicit practice yet he
approves of it. The manager himself
may be illegal. . . . As for the illegal
aliens they should be deported
immediately. The MCSO later
conducted a worksite operation at this
business.

Brockman Dep. [Lai Decl. Ex. 37];
3425 003017-18 (MCSO News
Release describing Days Inn
Operation).
37
On September 18, 2009, the Sheriff

received a fax indicating that Ross
Store . . . is employing illegal aliens
and suggesting that the MCSO pay a
visit and find out for [it]self. Sheriff
Arpaio forwarded the tip to Chief Brian
Sands to handle.
MELC643705, part of Ex. 143 to

Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 196:21199:19) [Lai Decl. Ex. 60].
38
In a February 9, 2011 letter to the

Sheriff, a constituent wrote that he
Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 200:10recently had some new kitchen cabinets 203:14) [Lai Decl. Ex. 60].
installed and What showed up to do
the work were three Mexicans two of
whom couldnt speak English! The
author continued, It appears the
company [he contracted with] hires what
looks like illegals.
39
In a May 10, 2010 letter to the Sheriff,

another individual wrote that he and his
family had dinner at a local restaurant
and contracted food poisoning. He
attributed this to the fact that illegal
aliens in Arizona find jobs working in
restaurant kitchens and claimed the
restaurant was employing illegal aliens
who are preparing food with open sores
on their hands. He ends with a plea that
they be investigated and this practice
stopped before someone dies

40
Between late 2007 and early 2008,
MCAO-025687-88, Ex. 49 to
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MCAO received numerous tips

regarding business allegedly employing
illegal aliens, that were routed to
Vicki Kratovil.
1
2
3
41
On February 21, 2008, the MCAO

MCAO-025541, Ex. 52 to Kratovil
received a tip to its Legal Arizona
Dep. (introduced at 201:15- 204:2)
Workers Act email address about three
[Lai Decl. Ex. 82].
companies allegedly employing illegal
immigrants. The author wrote that she
had attempted to report the company and
others to ICE, border patrol and other
agencies but nothing has been done.
She urged that something be done by the
MCAO.
42
When receiving tips by phone, CES used

a Basic Questions for Criminal
Employment Complainants, developed
by Sgt. Brockman. The questions on the
form make clear it is for taking notes
about a person reporting an
undocumented worker. An October 2012
version of the form includes the
following question: How does
complainant know subject(s) is
illegal/unauthorized to work legally? A
February 2014 version of the same form
asks: How does complainant know
subject(s) is illegal? and Does
complainant know when alien was
hired?

130:23-132:11) [Lai Decl. Ex. 37];
MELC653088-95, Ex. 115 to
Whelan-Gonzales Dep. (introduced at
104:6-106:6) [Lai Decl. Ex. 67] at
MELC653091-92.
43
Upon receiving a tip, MCSO would

attempt to determine its credibility, and
if there was enough information to begin
an investigation, detectives would
request employee wage/tax records from
the Arizona Department of Economic
Security (DES). MCSO would then
check the Social Security numbers and
names for each employee in the DES
records and, if any were determined not
to match records in law enforcement
databases and Social Security
Administration (SSA) records, then
the employees name would be included
by MCSO in a search warrant
application.
MCAO 025819-26, Ex. 29 to Kratovil

Dep. (introduced at 117:13-16) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 77] at MCAO 025820-21;
MCSO1104267-69, Ex. 76 to
Brockman Dep. (introduced at 47:149:9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 34],
MELC659975, Ex. 81 to Brockman
[Lai Decl. Ex. 36]
44
Upon obtaining a search warrant, MCSO

would then execute the warrant, seize
employee files, and arrest employees
under the identity theft and forgery laws.
They would then submit the cases to
MCAO 025819-26, Ex. 29 to Kratovil

Dep. (introduced at 117:13-16) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 77] at MCAO 025820-21;
MCSO1104267-69, Ex. 76 to
Brockman Dep. (introduced at 47:1-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Kratovil Dep. (introduced at 201:15204:2) [Lai Decl. Ex. 81]; MCAO026696-97, MCAO-026371-80 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 133].
28
9
MCAO for prosecution.
49:9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 34],

MELC659975, Ex. 81 to Brockman
[Lai Decl. Ex. 36]
45
MCAO filed charges against employees

under A.R.S. 13-2008(A), 132009(A)(3) and 13-2002.
Ex. 28 to Kratovil Dep. (introduced at

99:8-102:1) [Lai Decl. Ex. 76] at
MCAO 025761; Kratovil at 113:8114:8.
46
The MCSOs identity theft/forgery

worksite search warrant operations were
part of a larger campaign by the Sheriff
to crack down on illegal immigration.
In an MCSO News Release on March
15, 2008 announcing the arrest of an
employee for identity theft and forgery,
the Sheriff stated, My Office will
continue cracking down on illegal
immigration. Sheriffs deputies will
continue to investigate crimes in the
work place related to illegal
immigration, including violations of the
Employer Sanctions Law.
PUENTE P 008732, Ex. 129 to

47
In a September 2008 summary report

developed by MCAO for the public
titled, Illegal Immigration, the MCAO
listed enforcement of the LAWA,
including the provisions prohibit[ing]
employees from using false documents
to obtain employment, as one of several
efforts the Office was engaged in on the
issue of illegal immigration. The report
also listed LAWA, including the ID theft
provisions, as Ilegal Immigration
Legislation.
MCAO-013688-99 [Lai Decl. Ex.

101] at MCAO-013691, MCAO013697; Montgomerys Resp. to Pls.
Interrogatory No. 9 [Lai Decl. Ex. 28]
at 2-3.
48
In an MCAO News Release dated Oct.

11, 2009 discussing an updated report
the MCAO had issued on the link
between illegal immigration and crime,
the release noted that then-County
Attorney Andrew Thomas ha[d] been a
national leader in his crackdowns on
illegal immigration[.]
MCAO-014069-70, Ex. 26 to
Kratovil Dep. (introduced at 58:659:6) [Lai Decl. Ex. 75]
49
In the years following passage of

LAWA, the Arizona Legislature
allocated monies for enforcement of the
employer sanctions law, A.R.S. 23212, under a budget line item called
County attorney immigration
enforcement. More than $1.4 million
Laws 2008, 48th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess.,

Ch. 285, 2; Laws 2009, 49th Leg.,
1st Reg. Sess., Ch. 11, 7; Laws
2010, 49th Leg., 7th Spec. Sess., Ch.
1, 6; Laws 2011, 50th Leg., 1st Reg.
Sess., Ch. 24, 6; Laws 2012, 50th
Leg., 2d Reg. Sess., Ch. 294, 7;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
was allocated to Maricopa County in

2008 and 2009, and more than $1.2
million was allocated to the County in
2010. After 2010, sums were allocated
separately to MCSO ($500,000) and
MCAO ($200,000) annually.
Laws 2013, 51st Leg., 1st Spec. Sess.,

Ch. 1, 6; Laws 2014, 51st Leg., 2d
Reg. Sess., Ch. 18, 4.
50
From 2008 to 2010, the MCAO and

MCSO had an Interdepartment
Agreement (IDA) whereby MCAO
shared funds from the State with MCSO.
In exchange for the funds, MCSO
agreed to assist MCAO in receiving
information concerning and
investigating possible violations of
A.R.S. 23-212. MCSO used these
funds to pay for personnel, equipment,
support and maintenance.
3425 003098-101, Jungels Decl. [Lai

Decl. Ex. 102] 6-10; 3425
003094-95 (IDA dated 2007); 3425
003096-97 (IDA dated 2009).
51
After 2010, MCAO and MCSO began

receiving money separately from the
State.

Decl. Ex. 102] 15; 3425 00307582, Ex. 150 to Arpaio Dep.
(introduced at 268:15-269:5) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 63]; 3425 003072, Ex. 121
to Whelan-Gonzales Dep. (introduced
at 122:2-25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 68];
MCAO-013665, MCAO-013657-59,
MCAO-014314-15, Exs. 193-95 to
Montgomery Dep. (introduced at
69:24-72:17, 80:18-82:9) [Lai Decl.
Exs. 92-94].
52
MCSO used the LAWA grant monies to

fund the salaries and benefits for six 2
Criminal Employment Squad (CES)
deputies who enforced the ID theft and
forgery laws.

Decl. Ex. 102] 16; 3425 003072,
Ex. 150 to Arpaio Dep. (introduced at
268:15-269:5) [Lai Decl. Ex. 63]
(confirming that by that point in 2013
the Sheriffs Office was not bringing
civil cases against employers but only
enforcing the criminal ID theft and
forgery laws); Ex. 121 to WhelanGonzales Dep. (introduced at 122:225) [Lai Decl. Ex. 68] (noting that
$467,707.28 was expended in 2014
salaries and benefits for deputies
who worked criminal employer
sanctions cases); Ex. 76 to
Brockman Dep. (introduced at 47:1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The CES was originally named the Employer Sanctions Unit. Its name changed to the
Criminal Employment Squad in 2010 after the MCAO, under Interim County Attorney
Rick Romley, stopped sharing LAWA funds with the MCSO. The name of the unit later
changed again to the Criminal Employment Unit (CEU), in 2013. Brockman Dep. at
20:14-22:17 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33]. For simplicity, Plaintiffs will use the term CEU to refer
to the unit unless a different term is used by the witness or document.
11
49:9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 34] (noting

mission of CES).
1
2
53
MCAO used the LAWA funds to pay for

the salary and benefits of attorneys
assigned to prosecut[e] crimes related
to the employment of unlawful aliens
and crimes committed by illegal
immigrants including identity theft,
forgery . . . .
MCAO-013665, MCAO-013657-59,
MCAO-014314-15, Exs. 193-95 to
69:24-72:17, 80:18-82:9) [Lai Decl.
Exs. 92-94]
54
Pearce and other legislators supported

appropriations specifically for MCAO
and MCSO because other counties were
not enforcing the law.
Pearce Dep. at 203:20-204:18, 206:6208:9 [Lai Decl. Ex. 24]; Arpaio Dep.
at 278:13-16 [Lai Decl. Ex. 53].
55
MCSO and MCAO only discontinued

use of the LAWA funds for these
purposes (and returned the grants to the
State) after the preliminary injunction
order in this case.
Ex. 121 to Whelan-Gonzales Dep.

Ex. 68]; MCAO-027190 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 105].
56
In addition to the LAWA monies,

starting in 2010, the MCSO also began
utilizing funds from the State Gang and
Immigration Intelligence Team
Enforcement Mission (GIITEM)
pursuant to A.R.S. 41-1724 to fund
CES operating expenses, support staff
and a supervisor. It had an MOU with
the Arizona Department of Public Safety
(DPS), which specified that the funds
were for strict enforcement of
immigration, . . . smuggling, gangs and
employer sanctions laws.

Decl. Ex. 102] 11, 13-14; WhelanGonzales Dep. at 19:25-21:9 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 64]; 3425 003092-93 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 106].
57
Because funds received from other

sources did not cover all relevant
expenses, MCSO and MCAO have also
used County general funds to pay for
enforcement of identity theft and forgery
laws in the employment context.
3425 092298-99, Bohn Decl. [Lai

Decl. Ex. 107] 4-5; Sharbach Decl.
[Lai Decl. Ex. 108] 11; Plaintiffs
Request for Admission No. 11 to
Arpaio (deemed admitted) [Lai Decl.
Ex. 30] (establishing that MCSO
spent County tax revenues on
employment-related identity theft and
forgery investigations and operations
in 2014); Montgomerys Resp. to
Pls. Request for Admission No. 13
[Lai Decl. Ex. 29] (admitting that
MCAO spent County tax revenues on
forgery prosecutions in 2014).
58
MCSO and MCAO only brought a
PUENTE P 004545-47, Ex. 88 to
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
handful of actions against employers

civil and criminal includedover the
years.

136:14-138:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 39]
(CES stat sheet showing that there
were only several investigations
against employers); 3425 003051-52
[Lai Decl. Ex. 109] (noting that arrest
of Uncle Sams owner was fourth
action against an employer and the
first to involve criminal charges).
59
In total, MCSO conducted more than 80

worksite operations through late 2014,
resulting in the arrest of 806 persons
charged with a total of 4,082 felony
counts as well as 19 misdemeanor
counts. MCSO also turned over 175
individuals to ICE that it could not
detain on state charges.
MELC1435254, Ex. 111 to WhelanGonzales Dep. (introduced at 80:1786:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 65]
60
In a December 10, 2011 MCSO News

PUENTE P 000268-69, Ex. 98 to
Release announcing a raid on a Chandler Brockman Dep. (introduced at
restaurant, Sheriff Arpaio stated that
171:16-17) [Lai Decl. Ex. 45]
100% of all suspects [of] . . . . identity
theft to gain employment in worksite
operations to date had been illegal
aliens.
61
In a January 17, 2013 MCSO News

MCSO 1290989-90, Ex. 97 to
Release about the raid on Lams
Supermarket in Maryvale, the MCSO
171:16-173:11) [Lai Decl. Ex. 44]
announced that its worksite operations
had resulted in the arrests of 684
suspects, all of whom were later
determined to be in the U.S. illegally.
499 had been charged with identity theft.
62
The worksite operations would often

involve the arrest of many employees at
once. For example, at the Gold Canyon
Candle Company operation on
September 10, 2008, MCSO detained
approximately 300 workers and
ultimately arrested 65. The search
warrant for that operation had listed 31
suspects.
MELC1435254, Ex. 111 to WhelanGonzales Dep. (introduced at 80:1786:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 65] (listing
number of suspects arrested in each
operation); 3425 000536-38, Ex. 94 to
Brockman Dep. (introduced at 156:3156:15) [Lai Decl. Ex. 42]; 3425
000540-42, Ex. 95 to Brockman Dep.
Decl. Ex. 43].
63
Immigration is one of the hot topics

for the Public Information Office (PIO)
at the MCSO.
Jones Dep. at 15:9-16 [Lai Decl. Ex.

50].
64
Prior to a CES worksite operation,

MCSO would often hold a briefing at
which the Sheriff and members of the
Jones Dep. at 25:14-28:18 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 50].
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13
PIO would be present. Among other

things, the briefings would include
discussion of the staging and logistics of
a press event. A fair amount of media
would typically show up at a worksite
operation.
1
2
3
4
65
Plaintiffs statistical expert, Dr. Jennifer Earl Decl. 1.

Earl, conducted a statistical analysis of
data from the MCAOs electronic case
management system and other records.
She analyzed trends over time in identity
theft and forgery cases, with a particular
focus on employment-related cases, and
looked at patterns in law enforcement
agency submittals and MCAO bureau
assignment of cases.
66
MCAO does not maintain a single,

comprehensive list of all employmentrelated identity theft and forgery cases.
Dr. Earl therefore developed a
methodology for identifying cases likely
to be employment-related by looking at
(1) cases involving an A.R.S. 132009(A)(3) charge; (2) cases flagged as
Immigration Violation-Employee in
MCAOs case management system; and
(3) cases identified as Employee on
Special Crimes Bureau submittal
spreadsheets. In addition, Defendants
expert, Dr. Mark Cohen, had MCAO
match cases arising out of MCSO
worksite operations to those in MCAOs
cases management system for him, and
where Dr. Earls methodology had not
identified one of these cases as
employment-related, Dr. Earl added the
case to her employment measure.
Because MCAO stopped tracking
Immigration Violation-Employee
cases in March 2014 and no A.R.S.
13-2009(A)(3) or MCSO worksite cases
were brought in 2015, it is difficult to
draw conclusions about employmentrelated cases from the data in 2015, and
to some extent in 2014.
PUENTE P EXP 000001-97, Earl

Initial Expert Rep. [Earl Decl. Ex. A],
at PUENTE P EXP 000007-08, -12, 30; PUENTE P EXP 000098-145,
Earl Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert
Rep. [Earl Decl. Ex. B], at PUENTE
P 000104-08.
67
Dr. Earls findings confirm that, in

addition to prosecuting cases arising out
of the MCSOs worksite operations,
MCAO has also brought a significant
number of employment-related identity

Supplemental/Rebuttal Expert Rep.
[Earl Decl. Ex. B], at PUENTE P
000114-16, -37-38; Kratovil Dep. at
103:18-104:6 [Lai Decl. Ex. 73].
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
theft and forgery cases referred from

other law enforcement agencies.
1
2
68
MCSOs CEU investigated some cases

outside of the worksite operations,
though the majority of its time was
focused on the worksite operations.
Brockman Dep. at 98:3-5; 99:6-21

[Lai Decl. Ex. 37]; Whelan-Gonzales
Dep. 58:6-15, 65:13-17 [Lai Decl. Ex.
64].
69
Because MCAO did not specifically

track employment-related cases prior to
2008, Plaintiffs expert Dr. Earl tried to
gain a better sense of Defendants
enforcement practices from 2008
onwards as compared to pre-2007
activity. She examined a subset of cases
where forgery was co-charged with nonaggravated identity theft (the identity
theft statute that employment-related
cases would have been brought under
before 2008, if at all) and found that the
number and proportion of these cases
that were brought against undocumented
immigrants rose sharply in the several
years after 2007.

at PUENTE P 000040-41.
70
Of the employment-related identity theft

and forgery cases handled by the
MCAO, including those referred by
agencies other than MCSO, all but a
small fraction were brought in each year
against undocumented immigrants.
Defendants expert Dr. Cohens findings
are not to the contrary using his
employment-related case measure, he
concludes that 90% of the cases filed by
MCAO based on submittals from all
agencies, including MCSO, were
brought against undocumented
immigrants. 3% were brought against
those known to be not undocumented
and 7% were brought against those
whose immigration status was unknown.

at PUENTE P 000011-12, -34-35;
[Earl Decl. Ex. B] at PUENTE P
000112-13; MCAO-028150-028306,
Cohen Expert Report, Ex. 2 to Cohen
Dep. (introduced at 19:16-20:18,
231:16-232:18) [Lai Decl. Ex. 100] at
MCAO-028163, -284.
71
Employment-related cases were far

more likely to be brought against
undocumented individuals compared to
forgery and identity theft cases
generally.

at PUENTE P 000037-41, -98-145;
000112-13.
72
Vicki Kratovil, an MCAO bureau chief

who oversaw many of these cases, has
stated that it is legally and factually
Kratovil Dep. at 26:22-27:6, 105:24106:22, 109:11-19 [Lai Decl. Ex. 73]
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
obvious that undocumented workers

would have to use someone elses
documents to work because they dont
have the documents themselves.
1
2
3
73
A majority of employment-related
identity theft and forgery cases brought
by the MCAO studied by Defendants
expert Dr. Cohen have been brought
during the Montgomery Administration.

231:16-232:18) [Lai Decl. Ex. 100] at
MCAO-028302.
74
Between 2007 and 2015, MCSO

submitted at least 697 employmentrelated identity theft and forgery cases to
the MCAO for prosecution.

000137 (showing the MCSO had
submitted 697 cases that Dr. Earl
could identify as employment-related
using the IVE or 2009A3 or SCB
Emp or Raids measure).
75
At least 1,864 employment-related cases

were submitted and/or filed by the
MCAO in total from 2007 onwards.

000109 (showing annual totals for
cases that Dr. Earl could identify as
employment-related using the IVE or
2009A3 or SCB Emp or Raids
measure).
76
Forgery charges played a prominent role

in employment-related identity theft and
forgery cases starting in 2007. In fact, a
great majority of employment-related
cases from 2010 to 2014 involved cocharging forgery with one of the
identity-theft charges, A.R.S. 13-2008
or A.R.S. 13-2009. The use of forgery
statutes in employment-related cases
grew during a period that the overall use
of forgery charges by the MCAO was
declining.

at PUENTE P 000018-20 (discussing
trend in overall use of forgery charges
from 2005 to 2015), PUENTE P
000028 (explaining how to read the
co-charging graphics); PUENTE P
EXP 000098-145, Earl
000126-27, -142-45 (showing forgery
co-charging patterns in employmentrelated cases using Plaintiffs and
Defendants experts measures).
77
At a March 2014 Tea Party event,

Arpaio stressed to a group of supporters,
Now, theyre clamping down, all these
rulings from judges . . . But I still
enforce the illegal immigration laws by
virtue of going into businesses and
locking up the employees with fake ID.
He continued, confirming his
understanding of the identity theft laws
as an immigration enforcement tool,
[W]e do know that 99.9 percent are

Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 154:1721, 158:6-9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 58]
(starting at minute marker 51:04)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
here illegally, we know that, but they are

not charged with that[.]
1
2
78
For many years, until sometime after

July 6, 2015, the MCAO webpage stated
that the Special Crimes Bureau
prosecuted a category of Illegal
Immigrant Crimes, which included the
use of a Social Security account or other
identification to get a job in the United
States (Employment Identity Theft).
MCAO-13957-58, Ex. 25 to Kratovil

Dep. (introduced at 42:22-44:20) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 74].
79
The Special Crimes Bureau webpage

content was reviewed and approved by
County Attorney Montgomery after he
took office.
Montgomerys Resp. to Pls.

Interrogatory No. 7 [Lai Decl. Ex. 28]
at 2.
80
MCSO regularly seized federal

employment verification forms/I-9s
from businesses as part of worksite
search warrant operations.
MELC659976-81, Ex. 106 to

Whelan-Gonzales Dep. at 28:1630:25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 48] at
MELC659981 (
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
); MELC659982-660008, Ex.
107 to Brockman Dep. (introduced at
Whelan-Gonzales Dep. at 54:1555:13) [Lai Decl. Ex. 49] at
MELC660005 (
14
15
16
17
).
18
See also, e.g., MELC513822, -08, 26, Ex. 91 to Brockman Dep.

(introduced at 139:11-143:6, 150:12152:22, 155:15-156:2) [Lai Decl. Ex.
40] (I-9s seized from employee files
at Lindstrom Family Auto Wash
operation); MELC602175-76,
MELC602190-91 [Lai Decl. Ex. ]
(MCSO Supplemental Reports for
Sportex Apparel operation showing
that that deputies seized and reviewed
I-9s); MELC 507585 [Lai Decl. Ex.
110] (search warrant Return of
Property Receipt for Lams
Supermarket operation showing
documents seized as employee files
and I-9s); MELC530580-82 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 112] (MCSO Supplemental
Report noting seizure of employee
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
file including I-9 on September 4,

2014).
1
2
81
As Vicki Kratovil acknowledged, the

Social Security numbers in the DES
employee wage/tax records that MCSO
would base their worksite investigations
on were the ones that employees would
provide in order to obtain employment.

Decl. at 73] (discussing procedure for
LAWA investigations in Ex. 28).
82
Defendants expert, Dr. Cohen,

conducted an analysis of the types of
documents that were relied upon in
charging employment-related forgery
and identity theft cases. He found that
prosecutors relied on the Form I-9 when
filing direct complaints in an estimated
11% of cases, on state IDs in 20% of
cases and on Social Security cards in
20% of cases. During Defendant
Montgomerys Administration,
prosecutors have relied upon the Form I9 when filing direct complaints in at
least 129 cases, on state IDs in at least
133 cases and on Social Security cards
in at least 166 cases. In some cases,
prosecutors relied solely on a Form I-9.

231:16-232:18) [Lai Decl. Ex. 100] at
MCAO-028219, 302, -305; Cohen
Dep. at 196:3-198:15 (clarifying that
Social Security number in his report
is intended to mean Social Security
card).
83
After this lawsuit was filed, on

September 17, 2014, Defendant
Montgomery issued a policy prohibiting
prosecutors from relying on the Form I9 as evidence to establish any element of
a crime or in charging decisions;
however, that policy does not discuss
reliance on other documents workers
may submit in the employment
verification process.
MCAO-026093-98, Ex. 53 to
Kratovil Dep. (introduced at Kratovil
Dep. at 210:23-211:8) [Lai Decl. Ex.
83]; Kratovil Dep. at 134:6-15, 215:715 [Lai Decl. at 73]; MCAO-00142163, Ex. 201 to Montgomery Dep.
Ex. 96] at MCAO-001427-28;
Montgomery Dep. at 207:7-208:23,
210:7-211:10 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91]
(policy does not prohibit prosecutors
from relying on documents submitted
to demonstrate work eligibility as part
of the employment verification
process other than the I-9).
84
In at least once case after this lawsuit

was filed, MCAO relied upon a Form I9 to charge an individual. After the
policy change on September 17, 2014,
MCAO dismissed this count.
MCAO-CRSubSet-014107-13, -1417, MCAO-CR2014-140120-001000001 [Lai Decl. Ex. 113] (charging

documents for case where
undocumented immigrant had used a
false name and Social Security
number on an I-9, job application and
other documents to obtain
employment).
85
Undocumented individuals prosecuted
MELC540375-384 [Lai Decl. Ex.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
for fraud relating to employment-related

documents outside the employment
verification process committed that
fraud to maintain the identity they
adopted to demonstrate authorization to
work in the United States.
114] (charging summary from MCSO

operation at Pei Wei Asian Diner
showing that arrestees used same
false Social Security number on all
employment-related documents,
including A-4s and W-4s);
MELC437091-92 [Lai Decl. Ex. 115]
(supplemental report showing same
from AutoFit operation);
MELC610941-43 [Lai Decl. Ex. 116]
(supplemental report showing same
from United Construction Group
operation); PUENTE P 012478-82
[Lai Decl. Ex. 118] (charging
documents for case where all
employment-related documents
showed same false name and Social
Security number); PUENTE P
012528-33 [Lai Decl. Ex. 119]
(charging documents for case where
undocumented immigrant who came
to U.S. at 16-years old had invented
an identity and used it on all
employment paperwork, did not know
Social Security number belonged to
anyone).
86
Starting in 2007, Sheriff Arpaio has

made illegal immigration issues a
priority of his Office and major focus of
his re-election campaigns.
Plaintiffs Request for Admission

Nos. 5-6 to Arpaio (deemed admitted)
[Lai Decl. Ex. 30]
87
In a March 29, 2007 MCSO News

Release, Sheriff Arpaio laid out the
elements of his comprehensive fight to
tackle what he called the illegal
immigration epidemic. This included a
287(g) agreement with DHS to crosscertify his deputies to enforce federal
immigration laws, the hiring of
additional deputies to investigate and
arrest undocumented immigrants, and
establishment of a Human Smuggling
Unit.
PUENTE P 008719-20, Ex. 123 to

Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 15:1017:14) [Lai Decl. Ex. 54]; Arpaio
Dep. at 38:5-39:23 [Lai Decl. Ex. 53].
88
Arpaios head of media relations, Lisa

Allen, has stated that for the MCSO,
immigration enforcement was an
awful lot of, you know, identity theft
and so forth.
PUENTE P 001708-12, -35-36, -95,

Ex. 109 to Jones Dep. (introduced at
18:17-22:24) [Lai Decl. Ex. 51]
(excerpts from Allen Dep. in United
States v. Maricopa County, No. 2:12cv-00981-ROS (D. Ariz.))
89
In a September 24, 2008 MCSO News

Release about the Legacy Custom Doors
worksite operation, then-County
PUENTE P 008741-42, Ex. 133 to

Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 91:1492:25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 56]; Arpaio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Attorney Thomas was quoted as saying, Dep. at 93:1-94:3 [Lai Decl. Ex. 53].
about the investigations his Office was
working with the Sheriffs Office on,
We hope as enforcement spreads so
does the message that it not acceptable
to hire illegal workers and undercut the
wages of hard working citizens and legal
immigrants. Sheriff Arpaio said he
agreed with the statement at the time.
1
2
3
4
5
90
In an August 24, 2011 News Release

about the MCSOs worksite operation at
Days Inn, the Sheriff noted that his
deputies raiding workplaces, which is
believed to have caused the removal of
approximately 1,000 illegal aliens,
should help the local economy by
opening up job opportunities for United
States citizens.
91
In an April 14, 2009 MCSO News

PUENTE P 008745-66, Ex. 137 to
Release, the Sheriff noted that he
Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 130:24specifically went ahead with an
133:14) [Lai Decl. Ex. 57]
employment-related felony ID theft and
forgery case despite then-DHS Secretary
Janet Napolitanos policy indicating
that federal immigration authorities will
now only focus their efforts on
employers, not employees who are in the
country illegally.
92
In response to the filing of this lawsuit,

MCSO issued a News Release quoting
the Sheriff as stating, My message to
all identity thieves is that there is no
sanctuary in Maricopa County . . . As
long as Im the sheriff, we will continue
to enforce the identity-theft law.
PUENTE P 005148-49, Ex. 147 to

Arpaio Dep. (introduced at 247:14249:1) [Lai Decl. Ex. 62]
93
In response to the preliminary injunction

order in this case, County Attorney
Montgomery issued a statement that the
ruling underscores yet again the
consequences of federal inaction and the
Obama Administrations indifference to
the effects of unlawful immigration
policies.

221:21-223:18) [Lai Decl. Ex. 97];
Montgomery Dep. at 222:21-223:17
[Lai Decl. Ex. 91].
94
MCSO created a dedicated unit to

investigate violations of the new
employer sanctions law. When the unit
was created in January 2008, it was
organized within the HSU.
Brockman Dep. at 22:20-23; 37:8-10

[Lai Decl. Ex. 33].
95
Sgt. Brockman was the acting sergeant
Brockman Dep. at 10:14-17; 20:7-17
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
3425 003017-18 [Lai Decl. Ex. 120]
over the CES from January 2008 to

[Lai Decl. Ex. 33]; Whelan-Gonzales
August 2013, and then he was succeeded Dep. at 13:21-23; 19:10-14 [Lai Decl.
by Sgt. Dmitrius Whelan-Gonzales, who Ex. 64].
oversaw the unit until it was disbanded
in 2015.
1
2
3
96
The mission of the HSU at that time was

to provide law enforcement services
centered on crimes that involve illegal
immigration, human smuggling and all
peripheral crimes associated with
smuggling. It had a total of three
squads, one of which was the newly
created Employer Sanctions Unit.
Ex. 79 to Brockman Dep. (introduced

at 102:16-22) [Lai Decl. Ex. 35];
Brockman Dep. at 37:21-40:1 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 33].
97
The mission of the Employer Sanctions

Unit and later CES was to investigate
and address all complaints brought to
the MCSOs attention involving the
employment of personnel using
fraudulent and or stolen identification
for the purposes of gaining and
maintaining employment. The
Employer Sanctions Unit would also
assist the other two HSU squads on
human smuggling interdiction patrols.

at 47:1-49:9) [Lai Decl. Ex. 34];
Decl. Ex. 33].
98
Sgt. Brockman and two of the original

four deputies assigned to the Employer
Sanctions Unit possessed certification
under the 287(g) program to enforce
federal immigration law. He testified
that this certification was relevant to the
units work.

Decl. Ex. 33].
99
After LAWA was enacted, the MCAO

assigned primary responsibility for
enforcing the new laws, including the
worker identity provisions, to a bureau
called the Special Crimes Bureau. The
Bureau Chief over Special Crimes at
that time was Vicki Kratovil. Ms.
Kratovil has expressed the view to those
in her Bureau that persons who have
entered the country illegally could be
viewed as high risk takers, and that
people who commit crimes tend to be
high risk takers.
Kratovil Dep. at 26:22-27:6, 67:2569:23, 92:6-94:11 [Lai Decl. Ex. 73];

Interrogatory No. 4. [Lai Decl. Ex.
27] at 14.
100 At that time, MCAO already had a

specialized unit dedicated to the
enforcement of fraud and identity theft
laws, called the Fraud and Identity Theft
Enforcement (FITE) Bureau. The
FITE Bureau was established in 2004
McKessy Dep. at 13:6-11 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 87]; Kratovil Dep. at 93:10-94:2
[Lai Decl. Ex. 73]; Montgomerys
Resp. to Pls. Interrogatory No. 4.
[Lai Decl. Ex. 27] at 13-14; MCAO013806-50, Ex. 66 to McKessy Dep.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
and had primary responsibility for the

prosecution of identity theft crimes from
its creation until 2007.
101 Maryann McKessy was the Bureau
Chief of the FITE Bureau from 2006 to
2013. She had significant experience
prosecuting fraud and identity theft
cases.
McKessy Dep. at 11:20-12:6, 14:613, 50:7-25-51:15 [Lai Decl. Ex. 87].
102 FITE would sometimes come across an

identity theft submittal where the case
arose in the employment context, but
this did not appear to be a significant
focus of the Bureaus work.
McKessy Dep. at 33:21-34:5, 36:1241:13, 41:15-42:20, 66:7-16 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 87] (testifying that she
could not specifically recall any
discussions with IDTIA group about
identity theft in the employment
context, that FITE did not generally
do work with ICE and that she was
not familiar with the Legal Arizona
Workers Act); MCAO-013806-50,
Ex. 66 to McKessy Dep. (introduced
at 27:17-30:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 88] at
MCAO-013807 (listing offenses
prosecuted by FITE); MCAO013675-87, Ex. 68 to McKessy Dep.
[Lai Decl. Ex. 89] at MCAO-01368182 (listing noteworthy cases
prosecuted by FITE).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
See also PUENTE P EXP 000001-97,

Earl Initial Expert Rep. [Earl Decl.
Ex. A], at PUENTE P EXP 00005256 (explaining how to read the
managing bureau graphics); PUENTE
P EXP 000098-145, Earl
000118-21 (showing updated
managing bureau results for FITE).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Ex. 88] at MCAO-013807 (listing
offenses prosecuted by FITE).
103 There was nothing deficient about the

way that FITE had been handling
identity theft cases arising in the
employment context up until that point.
Ms. McKessy clarified that FITE was
not fully divested of authority to
prosecute employment-related cases, but
primary responsibility went to Special
Crimes to pursue the workplace
roundups.
McKessy Dep. at 68:16-69:9, 140:15141:21, 142:5-143:9 [Lai Decl. Ex.

87]; see also Montgomery Dep. at
135:3-136:1 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91].
104 The reasons for assigning primary

responsibility for identity theft in
employment cases to Special Crimes
included its prior experience with

27] at 14-15; MCAO-013688-99 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 101] at MCAO-0123695;
28
22
1
2
3
working with federal agencies. In the

September 2008 MCAO report on
Illegal Immigration, the Office
explained that the Special Crimes
Bureau focuses on criminal activity that
violates immigration law.
4
5
6
7
8
9
105 Another reason offered for assigning

cases to Special Crimes was its
experience working on complex,
document-driven prosecutions. But
FITE was also competent in working
cases with a large volume of documents
and interrelated indictments.

27] at 14; see also MCAO-00142163, Ex. 201 to Montgomery Dep.
Ex. 96] at MCAO-001423-24;
Montgomery Dep. at 137:3-18 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 91]; MCAO-013675-87,
Ex. 68 to McKessy Dep. [Lai Decl.
Ex. 89] at MCAO-013681-82 (listing
noteworthy cases prosecuted by
FITE).
106 For a period of time while Rick Romley

served as interim County Attorney in
2010, primary responsibility for identity
theft in employment cases was
transferred back to the FITE Bureau.
McKessy Dep. at 88:15-89:10, 91:594:8 [Lai Decl. Ex. 87] (noting that
she did not feel there was any loss of
efficiency in the transfer of
employment cases back to FITE);
MCAO-013020-22, Ex. 69 to
McKessy Dep. (introduced at 90:791:1) [Lai Decl. Ex. 90]; Montgomery
Dep. at 139:4-140:15 [Lai Decl. Ex.
91] (agreeing with Ms. McKessys
statement that there would have been
no loss in efficiency in moving the
cases back to FITE in 2010).
107 When County Attorney Montgomery

took office, he moved primary
responsibility for the prosecution of
identity theft in employment cases back
to the Special Crimes Bureau.
Montgomery Dep. at 122:17-22,

123:11-124:6, [Lai Decl. Ex. 91];
McKessy Dep. at 99:6-13 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 87].
108 County Attorney Montgomery had made

a commitment during his campaign to
reverse the policy position that had been
taken by interim County Attorney
Romley regarding handling of
employment cases, and so by assigning
the cases back to the Special Crimes
Bureau, he was following through on
that promise.
Montgomery Dep. at 130:22-132:2

[Lai Decl. Ex. 91]; MCAO-10108-09,
Ex. 199 to Montgomery Dep.
Decl. Ex. 95] (Montgomery had
vowed to return to the policies of the
Thomas Administration in terms of
illegal immigration and partnering
with Sheriff Arpaio); Montgomery
Dep. at 109:8-112:16 [Lai Decl. Ex.
91].
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Montgomery Dep. at 124:7-21,

129:13-130:14 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91]
(testifying that another reason the
cases were assigned to Special Crimes
was because their prosecutors were
already handling hearings for
Proposition 100, a law then in effect
prohibiting undocumented
immigrants from being released on
bail).
27
28
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
109 Prior to creation of the MCAO-MCSO

Brockman Dep. at 74:6-21 [Lai Decl.
standing committee on LAWA, MCSOs Ex. 33].
HSU had worked together with the
Special Crimes Bureau on human
smuggling cases.
110 MCAO was involved in the initial
creation and staffing of the CEU,
Decl. Ex. 33].
including suggesting how many
detectives the unit would have, and later,
having say in the investigations.
111 The LAWA standing committee
meetings were usually attended by
members of the CEU and its supervisor
Sgt. Brockman, members of the Special
Crimes Bureau and its Chief Vicki
Kratovil, and high-ranking officials in
the MCSO and MCAO.

Decl. Ex. 33]; Kratovil Dep. at 39:1340:5, 189:13-190:2 [Lai Decl. Ex.
__]; Ex. 28 to Kratovil Dep.
Ex. 73] at MCAO 025764.
112 During the time period when the

standing committee was meeting,
MCSO would apprise the Special
Crimes Bureau of the worksite
operations it was going to conduct ahead
of time and provide MCAO with its
search warrants for review.
Brockman Dep. at 72:8-73:24, 82:1484:12 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33] (testifying

that the two agencies worked very
closely); Montgomery Dep. at
179:25-180:3 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91] (a
law enforcement asking MCAO to
review a search warrant before taking
it for approval by a judicial officer is
unusual for his Office).
113 Later, during the Montgomery

Administration, the CEU continued to
communicate with the Special Crimes
Bureau about employment-related
identity theft investigations.
Brockman Dep. at 84:13-17 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 33]; Whelan-Gonzales Dep.
at 71:13-74:9 [Lai Decl. Ex. 64].
114 MCSO would routinely send shift

summaries and operations plans of
worksite identity theft investigations to
the MCAO, and they would be
forwarded to Mr. Montgomery himself.
MCAO-027160-027164, MCAO027167, MCAO-027175, MCAO027183-027184, MCAO-027192,

MCAO-027195, MCAO-027198,
MCAO-027202, MCAO-027205,
MCAO-027208, MCAO-027212,
MCAO-027215 [Lai Decl. Ex. 121];
157:24-158:3 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91].
115 Plaintiffs expert Dr. Earl found that

compared to other law enforcement
agencies, the MCSO referred a
disproportionately large proportion of
forgery cases to the MCAO for

at PUENTE P 000045-48 (discussing
her analysis of law enforcement
agency submittals of cases), PUENTE
P 000028 (explaining how to read the
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
prosecution.
co-charging graphics); PUENTE P

EXP 000098-145, Earl
000114-17 (updating her analysis
with MCAO-corrected data).
1
2
3
4
5
6
116 Dr. Earl found that while the Special

Crimes Bureau handled a small
percentage of the MCAOs forgery cases
overall, it was a major force in
prosecuting employment-related identity
theft and forgery cases specifically.

at PUENTE P EXP 000052-56
(explaining how to read the managing
bureau graphics); PUENTE P EXP
000098-145, Earl
000118-19, 22-23 (showing updated
managing bureau results for the
Special Crimes Bureau).
117 The data revealed a strong relationship

between MCSO and the Special Crimes
Bureau where employment-related
identity theft and forgery cases were
concerned.

000118-19, 22-23 (showing
proportion of MCSO-referred cases
were handled the Special Crimes
Bureau versus other bureaus).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
118 Sgt. Brockman testified that his contact

with the MCAO on workplace identity
Decl. Ex. 33].
theft and forgery investigations was only
with the Special Crimes Bureau, and
never FITE.
119 Sgt. Brockman testified that MCAO was
regularly giving good props to the
CEU for the work they were doing, and
commended the units work all the way
through the end of his tenure as
supervisor, in 2013.

Decl. Ex. 33].
120 Identity theft and forgery cases referred

by the MCSO to the MCAO for
prosecution, and those handled by the
Special Crimes Bureau, were
disproportionately brought against
undocumented persons.

at PUENTE P EXP 000044-45
(explaining logistic regression
analysis) 52-56 (explaining how to
read the managing bureau graphics);
000117-18, -22-23, -32-33.
121 Sheriff Arpaio had a keen interest in the

work of the CEU.

Decl. Ex. 33] (stating that the Sheriff
liked to be briefed on CEU operations
in advance, would show up to most of
24
25
26
27
28
25
the operations, and would ask for

statistics and the details of
investigations); Whelan-Gonzales
Dep. at 59:4-23 [Lai Decl. Ex. 64]
(
).
1
2
3
4
122 The Sheriff kept personal files relating

to employer sanctions and the work of
the CEU.
Brockman Dep. 101:3-4, -17-23 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 33]; PUENTE P 004654852, Ex. 141 to Arpaio Dep.
Decl. Ex. 59]; Lake Decl. and Nafasi
Decl. [Lai Decl. Ex. 122] (verifying
that Ex. 141 to Arpaio Dep. was a
copy of a file labeled Employer
Sanctions kept among Sheriff
Arpaios personal files).
123 Since Sgt. Brockman left the CES and

was reassigned to Lake Patrol, he has
not spoken with Sheriff Arpaio and
Sheriff Arpaio has not taken the same
level of interest in his work.
Brockman Dep. 102:1-10 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 33].
124 MCSO nearly always issued a press

release in connection with a worksite
identity theft operation. In the releases,
Sheriff Arpaio wanted to have statistics
about the number of undocumented
immigrants who were arrested.
Jones Dep. at 23:5-18, 32:20-35:6,

38:15-39:8 [Lai Decl. Ex. 50]
(discussing statistics in press releases
and their source).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
See, e.g., 3425 002995-96, Ex. 110 to

Jones Dep. (introduced at 42:2244:11) [Lai Decl. Ex. 52] (MCSO
News Release dated June 13, 2014
linked to Sheriffs Twitter account,
noting that 9 suspects [arrested] on
charges of forgery . . . are in the
United States illegally).
See also Brockman Dep. at 162:23163:2 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33] (
19
20
).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
125 Sheriff Arpaio said he 99.9% statistic Arpaio Dep. at 158:29-159:13 [Lai
cited in his March 2014 speech to the
Decl. Ex. 53].
Tea Party relating to those arrested in his
worksite operations was likely based on
data his Office kept.
126 While County Attorney Thomas was in
office, Ms. Kratovil reports that he
wanted to be kept apprised of statistics
about cases involving illegal
immigration.
28
26

Decl. Ex. 73]; MCAO-021074-76A,
Ex. 32 to Kratovil Dep. (introduced at
146:8-147:22 [Lai Decl. Ex. 78]
(examples of statistics Ms. Kratovil
maintained for County Attorney
Thomas).
1
2
127 Beginning in 2005, MCAO started

tracking the immigration status of
individuals prosecuted by the Office
That policy was

continued in the Montgomery
Administration and it remains in effect
today.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
128 MCSO worksite operations were

generally initiated from tips from a
member of the public.
Brockman Dep. at 46:6-13, 51:1952:13, 123:16-124:8 (discussing

illegalimmigration@mcso.maricopa.g
ov e-mail address) [Lai Decl. Ex. 33];
Whelan-Gonzales Dep. at 27:1-28:11
[Lai Decl. Ex. 64].
129 It was part of CEUs mission to address

all relevant tips that came in
.
Brockman Dep. at 51:19- 53:15 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 33].
130 MCSO set up a special hotline for

illegal immigration so that individuals
with complaints relating to immigration
could contact MCSO with greater ease.
The largest category of complaints
received was consistently about illegal
employment.
Arpaio Dep. at 56:8-58:16 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 53] (discussing illegal
immigration hotline); MELC63228290, Ex. 85 to Brockman Dep.
(introduced at 113:5-117:6 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 38]; E_3425_000010287-88, 316-17, -920-21, -960-61 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 123] (e-mails from Perla Plata re:
Illegal Alien Hotline Stats from
2012 and 2013).
131 When executing search warrants on

worksite identity theft operations,
MCSO would sometimes show up with
a large number of personnel from
various divisions, including the Tactical
Operations Unit, SWAT and K-9.
See, e.g., MELC512446-48, Ex. 93 to

143:10-144:2 [Lai Decl. Ex. 41]
(operations plan for Lindstrom
Family Auto Wash); 3425 000536-38,
at 156:3-156:15) [Lai Decl. Ex. 42]
(operations plan for Gold Canyon
Candle Company).
132

Decl. Ex. 33].
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MCAO-026150, Ex. 16 to Rafidi

[Lai Decl. Ex. 70]; MCAO-026138,
Ex. 17 to Rafidi Dep. (introduced at
148:1-15) [Lai Decl. Ex. 71] (noting
that the information is to be gathered
for statistical purposes); MCAO026153-55, Ex. 21 to Rafidi Dep.
Decl. Ex. 72]; Rafidi Dep. at 174:4-17
[Lai Decl. Ex. 69] (discussing how
MCAO continued to track illegal
aliens in the case management
system after the conversion to the
new PbK system).
26
27
28
27
133
3425 000540-42, Ex. 95 to Brockman

[Lai Decl. Ex. 43].
134 The CES had some deputies conducting

investigative work even though they
were not trained and certified as
detectives.
Brockman Dep. 25:15-20 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 33].
135 In December 2011, after an

investigation, the Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division issued a findings
letter indicating it had determined the
MCSO was engaged in a pattern and
practice of civil rights violations,
including unlawful detentions and
discriminatory policing, including
through the activities of the CEU. The
United States later sued Sheriff Arpaio
over these issues.

Ex. 124] (findings letter); Complaint,
Doc. 1, United States v. Maricopa
County, No. 2:12-cv-0981-ROS (D.
Ariz.) (filed May 10, 2012).
136 In May 2013, U.S. District Court Judge

Murray Snow determined after a bench
trial that the MCSO was engaged in
systematic racial profiling and Fourth
Amendment violations during
immigration-focused traffic operations
led by the HSU.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, Doc. 579, Melendres v. Arpaio,
No. 07-cv-02513 (May 24, 2013).
137 Judge Snow had earlier issued a

preliminary injunction in the same case
ordering the MCSO to stop detaining
persons solely on the basis of suspected
unlawful presence. In May 2016, Judge
Snow found that the MCSO had
disobeyed his preliminary injunction
and continued to unlawfully detain
individuals on this basis, including on
worksite identity theft operations, after
December 2011. He held Sheriff Arpaio
and other high-ranking members of the
MCSO at the time in contempt.
Findings of Fact and Order Setting a

Hearing for May 31, 2016, Doc.
1677, Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 07cv-02513, at 3-33, 162 (May 13,
2016); PUENTE P 007483-84, Ex.
145 to Arpaio Dep. (introduced at
244:18-247:13) [Lai Decl. Ex. 61]
(MCSO News Release discussing
United Construction Group operation
wherein the Sheriff refused to allow
[two] suspected illegal aliens
encountered during a worksite
identity theft operation that ICE had
declined to arrest [back] into the
streets, and transported them to
Border Patrol instead).
138 A state court has found multiple times

that the MCSO made misstatements in
its search warrant application for the
Ryan 3425 003610-18 [Lai Decl. Ex.

125]; see also Frimmel v. Sanders,
338 P.3d 972 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014),
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28
Uncle Sams worksite operation and

suppressed all evidence seized pursuant
to the warrant.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
139 Beginning in 2014, an internal

investigation was conducted by MCSO
relating to mishandling of identification
cards and other property taken by HSU
deputies during their operations. Though
the investigation suggested serious
misconduct, only minor discipline in the
form of written reprimands was issued
as to some of the principals, and other
principals received no discipline at all.
3425 006265-87, 3425 006501-63

[Lai Decl. Ex. 126]; Findings of Fact
and Order Setting a Hearing for May
31, 2016, Doc. 1677, Melendres v.
Arpaio, No. 07-cv-02513, at 48, 12226 (May 13, 2016) (finding that
officers routinely took trophies of
their arrests of unauthorized aliens
and had improperly handled the
IA#2014-541 investigation).
140 Lt. Sousa, former supervisor over the

HSU, had written in MCSO internal
investigations that HSU was
dysfunctional at times, resulting from
failures of leadership at the uppermost
levels of command, and that [t]he root
cause of all the issues in Human
Smuggling was the Sheriffs drive to
enforce the illegal immigration issues
that was giving him so much media
attention.
Findings of Fact and Order Setting a

Hearing for May 31, 2016, Doc.
1677, Melendres v. Arpaio, No. 07cv-02513, at 148-49 (May 13, 2016).
141 MCAO was aware of some of the

MCSOs procedures for conducting
worksite enforcement operations
Brockman Dep. at 72:8-73:24, 82:1486:17 [Lai Decl. Ex. 33].
17
18
as amended (Nov. 26, 2014) (noting

the seemingly pervasive
misstatements of basic facts and
numerous misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts made by
MCSO).
.
142 Mr. Montgomery was aware of the legal
rulings relating to the MCSOs
immigration-related enforcement
activities throughout this time period.

161:12-17, 169:10-21, 188:12-190:4
[Lai Decl. Ex. 91].
See, e.g., MCAO-CRSubSet-01410713, -14-17, MCAO-CR2014-140120001-000001 [Lai Decl. Ex. 113].
23
143 MCAO charges multiple counts of

forgery against undocumented workers
in employment-related identity theft and
forgery cases, one for each document
completed or used.
24
144

[Lai Decl. Ex. 85].
145

[Lai Decl. Ex. 86]; Montgomery Dep.
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
28
29
at 220:4-221:18 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91].

1
2
3
4
146
MCAO-026299-131, Ex. 55 to
Kratovil Dep. (introduced at 210:23211:8, 225:17-228:2) [Lai Decl. Ex.
84] at MCAO-026101, MCAO026128.
147 MCAO has the discretion to forego

charging an identity theft count in some
cases. For example, office policy states
that individuals will not be charged with
felony identity theft if they are arrested
on a misdemeanor and provide officers
with a false name or identifying
information (unless it is to avoid
detection on a felony matter, such as
felony probation), or if the offense arises
out of a prescription fraud drug case.
MCAO-026093-98, Ex. 53 to
Kratovil Dep. (introduced at 210:23211:8) [Lai Decl. Ex. 83], at MCAO026093, MCAO-026096; McKessy
Dep. at 84:3-87:12 [Lai Decl. Ex. 87].
148 Defendants enforcement of criminal

laws against undocumented workers has
put them in an even more vulnerable
position than before, discouraging them
from reporting labor violations.
Garcia Decl. 24-25 (Puente

members afraid to report workplace
violations); Abundez Gonzalez Decl.
12-14; Villanueva Fernandez Decl.
11 (Uncle Sams employees unable
to challenge workplace labor
violations due to fear of raids).
149
Whelan-Gonzales Dep. at 95:12-22,

96:16-23 [Lai Decl. Ex. 64]
(
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
); PUENTE P
000369-73, Ex. 112 to WhelanGonzales Dep. [Lai Decl. Ex. 66]
(DHS Revised Memorandum of
Understanding with DOL regarding
worksite enforcement activities).
25
26
27
28
30
1
2
150 MCAO did not consider whether an

undocumented worker had been subject
to a labor violation in deciding whether
or not to proceed with a prosecution.

Decl. Ex. 73] (testifying that MCAO
did not check with ICE before
deciding whether or not to follow up
on a complaint, and that she was not
aware of federal enforcement
priorities); Montgomery Dep. at
151:20-152:7 [Lai Decl. Ex. 91]
(testifying that he was not aware of
ICEs prosecutorial discretion
guidelines).
151 Neither MCSO nor MCAO has certified

any worker for a U-visa for labor
violations in connection with an
employment-related identity theft or
LAWA case.

Decl. Ex. 73]; Plaintiffs Request for
Admission No. 14 to Arpaio (deemed
admitted) [Lai Decl. Ex. 30].
152 MCSO conducted a raid and MCAO

prosecuted employees at Sportex
Apparel on February 8, 2013. There was
a federal DOL investigation going on at
the time.
MELC1435254, Ex. 111 to WhelanGonzales Dep. (introduced at 80:1786:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 65] (showing
worksite operation at Sportex Apparel
at line 71); PUENTE P 009776-82
[Lai Decl. Ex. 127] (DOL Wage and
Hour Division documents confirming
investigation from 6/4/2012 until
6/2/2014).
153 During the investigation into Uncle

Sams Restaurant, the MCSO learned,
before conducting its operation on July
17, 2013, that employees may have been
subject to wage and hour and other labor
violations, but went ahead with the
operation.
MELC1435254, Ex. 111 to WhelanGonzales Dep. (introduced at 80:1786:3) [Lai Decl. Ex. 65] (showing
worksite operation at Uncle Sams
Restaurant on July 17, 2013);
MELC606467-70, Ex. 104 to
192:21- 194:11) [Lai Decl. Ex. 46]
(MCSO Supplemental Report
detailing contact with confidential
source reporting Restaurants
employment of undocumented
immigrants, but also noting that
employer treats his employees like
trash and is paying them below
minimum wage).
154 After the Uncle Sams operation,

arrested workers gave MCSO and
MCAO information about ongoing labor
violations, including possible criminal
activity.

Decl. Ex. 33]; MELC629421-50, Ex.
105 to Brockman Dep. (introduced at
196:21-25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 47] at
MELC 629426-28, -36-39, -42-45, 49 (transcript of arrested employee
free talk with MCSO and MCAO
describing racial slurs and hostility,
discrimination, threats of physical
abuse, wage and overtime violations
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
31
and fear of retaliation if workers

complained); Abundez Gonzalez
Decl. 5-14, 17 (describing abuses
suffered and his free talk with
Defendants); Villanueva Fernandez
Decl. 5-11, 17 (same);
MELC629399-402 [Lai Decl. Ex.
117] (MCSO Supplemental Report
describing Mr. VillanuevaFernandezs free talk, in which he
noted that Uncle Sams manager
would make comments about her
calling the sheriffs to come and arrest
them in an effort to intimidate them).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
155 MCSO investigated Uncle Sams for

identity theft and forgery, but does not
appear to have pursued any case
regarding the treatment of employees.

Decl. Ex. 33]; Abundez Gonzalez
Decl. 17-18 (reporting that no one
ever contacted him about complaints
after free talk); Villanueva
Fernandez Decl. 16-17 (same).
156 MCAO has continued to bring

prosecutions against employees under
the forgery statute after the preliminary
injunction order on the worker identity
provisions.
Montgomerys Resp. to Pls. Request

for Admission No. 14 [Lai Decl. Ex.
28] (admitting that MCAO spent
County tax revenues on employmentrelated forgery prosecutions in 2015);
Interrogatory No. 12 [Lai Decl. Ex.
28]; MCAO-028450-51 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 128] (charges based on A-4 form,
Social Security card and permanent
resident card); MCAO-028458-63
[Lai Decl. Ex. 129] (charges based on
Arizona drivers license, background
check release form and tax
withholding forms).
157 Individuals MCAO brought

employment-related forgery charges
appear to have been undocumented.
See, e.g., MCAO-028458-63 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 129] (noting that individual
arrested would admit to obtaining an
Arizona identification card and Social
Security card . . . in order to work in
the United States).
158 MCSO would have detained at least

some persons prosecuted for forgery by
MCAO in the County jail.
Plaintiffs Request for Admission No.

13 to Arpaio (deemed admitted) [Lai
Decl. Ex. 30] (establishing that
MCSO spent County tax revenues on
detaining individuals on forgery
charges in 2015).
159 Sheriff Arpaios decision to announce in

December 2014 that he would be
Arpaio Resp. to Pls. Interrogatory

No. 20 [Lai Decl. Ex. 31]; Ltr of M.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32
disbanding the CEU was due, at least in

part, to the instant lawsuit.
2
3
Iafrate dated Mar 4, 2016 [Lai Decl

Ex. 32] (supplementing Arpaios
response to Plaintiffs Interrogatory
No. 20); Whelan-Gonzales Dep. at
115:6-22 [Lai Decl. Ex. 64].
160 Sheriff Arpaio testified in his deposition

that he would look forward to
resuming enforcement if the injunction
were lifted.
Arpaio Dep. at 193:19-194:18 [Lai

Decl. Ex. 53] (stating if we can get
back to enforcing [the worker identity
provisions], I would welcome that.)
161 County Attorney Montgomery has

announced publicly that his Office
intends to resume prosecutions under the
worker identity provisions previously
enjoined by this Court.

130] (Arizona Capital Times article
titled Prosecutions of job-related ID
theft laws expected to resume
quoting Montgomery).
PLAINTIFFS STANDING TO SEEK INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
4
5
6
7
10
162 Puente is a membership organization.
Garcia Decl. 11 (describing

membership requirements); PUENTE
P 000307-16 [Lai Decl. Ex. 135]
(Puente by-laws).
163 Puente currently has approximately 220

members.
Garcia Decl. 12; PUENTE P

012312-20 [Lai Decl. Ex. 136]
(membership list); PUENTE P
007225 [Lai Decl. Ex. 137] (About
Puente).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
164 Membership in Puente is open to any

individual within the greater Phoenix
135] (Puente by-laws); Garcia Decl.
Metropolitan area that believes and
11.
conforms to the mission of the
organization and meets the following
requirements: are current with dues and
have attended a Biannual Meeting and
either a) attend 10 meetings and 3 events
or b) complete a Curso de Defensa and
attend 3 events.
People who have committed to Puentes
mission, begun attending meetings and
are in the process of becoming members
but have not yet completed all the
requirements are considered provisional
or pending members.
165 Puente members share common
interests.
Garcia Decl. 11 (describing

membership requirement to believe in
and conform to Puente mission);
135] (Puente by-laws, describing the
same, and Puentes mission).
26
27
28
33
166 Puente members set the organizations

goals and priorities.
Garcia Decl. 13; PUENTE P

000307-16 [Lai Decl. Ex. 135]
(Puente by-laws, describing
membership rights and voting
process).
167 Puente members elect the organizations

Board of Directors and Steering
Committee.

135] (Puente by-laws, describing
process).
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
168 Puente members hold special bi-annual

meetings at which they approve Puentes 135] (Puente by-laws, describing
goals and objectives.
process).
169 Some undocumented Puente members
are currently working with false
identification that they used to
demonstrate authorization to work under
federal law. They live in fear of being
arrested and prosecuted under the
challenged statutes.
Garcia Decl. 16-17, 19; Garcia

Dep. at 265:16-266:18 [Lai Decl. Ex.
131] (stating that over a dozen
members came forward when asked
whether anyone was using false
identification to work).
170 John Doe I is a real person and a

member of Puente.
John Doe I Decl. 1, 3; Garcia Decl.

17-18.
171 John Doe I is an undocumented

immigrant who does not have a social
security number.
John Doe I Decl. 2.
172 John Doe I is currently working in

Arizona.
John Doe I Decl. 4.
173 Because John Doe I is undocumented

and has no social security number, he
provided his employer with a false name
in order to get and keep his current job.
John Doe I Decl. 4.
174 John Doe II is a real person and a

member of Puente.
John Doe II Decl. 1, 3; Garcia

Decl. 17-18.
175 John Doe II is an undocumented

security number.
John Doe II Decl. 2.
176 John Doe II is currently working in

Arizona.
John Doe I Decl. 5.
177 Because John Doe II is undocumented,

he had to provide his employer with
false personally identifying information
when he started to work. He used his
real number, but provided a false social
security number and a false green card.
John Doe I Decl. 6.
28
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
178 John Doe II has used this false

information to fill out work-related
documents.
John Doe I Decl. 6.
179 Jane Doe I is a real person and a

member of Puente.
Jane Doe I Decl. 1, 3; Garcia Decl.

17-18.
180 Jane Doe I is an undocumented

security number.
Jane Doe I Decl. 2.
181 Jane Doe I is currently working in

Arizona.
Jane Doe I Decl. 4.
182 Because Jane Doe I is undocumented, in

order to get and keep her job she had to
provide his employer with false personal
identifying information.
Jane Doe I Decl. 4.
183 Jane Doe I filled out her job application

using her real name and a social security
number that does not belong to her. She
also provided her employer with a false
green card.
Jane Doe I Decl. 4.
184 Puentes mission includes

develop[ing], educat[ing], and
empower[ing] migrant communities to
enhance the quality of life of our
community members.
Garcia Decl. 7.
185 Members of Maricopa Countys migrant

community have retreated from public
lifeincluding participation in Puente
meetings and activitiesas a result of
the climate of fear created by the
enforcement of the challenged
provisions.
Garcia Decl. 27.
186 Members of Maricopa Countys migrant Garcia Decl. 32.

community have reduced their
participation in Puente activities because
they or their family members were
incarcerated or detained pursuant to the
challenged provisions.
187 Puente devoted significant staff time,
volunteer time, and financial resources
to supporting people who were
themselves arrested or had family
members arrested under the challenged
provisions.
27
28
35
Garcia Dep. at 114:19-115:14, 155:516, 156:5-19, 158:3-21, 236:24237:18 [Lai Decl. Ex. 131]; Garcia
Decl. 33-44 (Puente staff devoted
staff and volunteer time, including
nearly all of their staff and some
volunteer time to responding to the
Sportex raid for the period of time,
and expended resources, including to
rent additional space above the office

to house a woman left homeless
following a raid, and to purchase a
van to facilitate transportation for
family members of those detained).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
188 Puente provided temporary emergency

housing support to a former member
affected by enforcement of the
Garcia Dep. at 157:9-11 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 131]; Garcia Decl. 37-40;
138] (rent payments, including costs
for temporary emergency housing). .
189 Puente provided transportation for

people to visit relatives who were
incarcerated under the challenged
provisions.
Garcia Dep. at 156:5-19

[Lai Decl. Ex. 131]; PUENTE P
005428-29 [Lai Decl. Ex. 139] (2014
financial report with budget lines for
van and car); Garcia Decl. 34,
48.
190 Puente purchased a van primarily to

bring individuals to Eloy Detention
Center to visit family members who
were transferred to immigration
detention following their arrest and
prosecution under the challenged
provisions.
Garcia Dep. at 238:19-24 [Lai Decl.

Ex. 131]; Garcia Decl. 41; PUENTE
P 005425-26 [Lai Decl. Ex. 140]
(2012 financial report); PUENTE P
005428-29 [Lai Decl. Ex. 139] (2014
financial report).
191 Puente helped individuals who had

themselves been arrested or who had
family members arrested under the
challenged provisions navigate the
criminal justice system.
Garcia Dep. at 89:7-12, 156:14-16

[Lai Decl. Ex. 131]; Garcia Decl.
34; PUENTE P 005427 [Lai Decl. Ex.
141] (2013 financial report with
budget line for casework/legal
services); PUENTE P 005428-29 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 139] (2014 financial report
with budget line for casework/legal
services).
192 Puente provided childcare to families

affected by enforcement of the
Garcia Decl. 34.
193 Puente helped people arrested under the

challenged provisions to seek wages
they were owed that were not paid as a
result of their arrest and detention.
Garcia Decl. 35, 38, 46; Abundez

Gonzalez Decl. 19; Villanueva
Fernandez Decl. 19 (noting that
Puente helped recover lost wages
owed by employer after MCSO raid
on Uncle Sams Restaurant).
194 Puente devoted significant resources to

educate its members and the public
about the challenged provisions.
Garcia Dep. at 87:14-17, 228:22229:7 [Lai Decl. Ex. 131] (Puente

modified educational programs to
include enforcement of the challenged
provisions).
195 Puente advocated for the release of
Garcia Decl. 35, 42, 45, 46;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36
people arrested and/or convicted under

the challenged provisions.
2
3
4
5
See also, e.g., PUENTE P 005222,

PUENTE P 005223, PUENTE P
005225, PUENTE P 005226,
005230, PUENTE P 005231,
143] (tweets from @PuenteAZ asking
for County Attorney Montgomery to
cease collaborating with Sheriff
Arpaio and drop the charges against
raid victims);
005260, PUENTE P 005261,
005264, PUENTE P 005265,
144] (tweets from @PuenteAZ
advocating against MCSO
enforcement of worker identity
provisions).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Abundez Gonzalez Decl. 14, 15,

19 (noting that Puente advocated for
his release following MCSO raid on
Uncle Sams Restaurant); Villanueva
Fernandez Decl. 12, 14, 19 (same);
007272 [Lai Decl. Ex. 142] (email
blasts calling for Montgomery to drop
charges on detained Sportex and other
raid victims).
196 Puente advocated for the release of

people who were transferred to
immigration custody after their arrest
and/or conviction under the challenged
provisions.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Garcia Decl. 35, 42, 45, 48, 49.

See also, e.g., PUENTE P 009037-38,
PUENTE P 009046-47, PUENTE P
009053-54, PUENTE P 009055 [Lai
Decl. Ex. __] (Puente petitions calling
for the release of individuals arrested
as a result of the enforcement of the
worker identity provision and/or
forgery statute from immigration
detention); PUENTE P 005345-46
[Lai Decl. Ex. 145] (Puente website
post of New York Times article about
member Katherine Figueroa whose
parents were detained as a result of
worksite raids).
See also, e.g., PUENTE P 007264,
007270, PUENTE P 007276-77 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 147] (Puente email blasts to
supporters advocating against
deportations of individuals
25
26
27
28
37
arrested/prosecuted by Defendants).
1
2
3
197 In order to undertake the efforts

described above, Puente had to divert
resources away from its core programs,
including health and English programs
and basic know-your-rights trainings.
Garcia Decl. 33, 43 (organizational

activities include educational
empowerment, collaborations, events,
activities, art projects, cultural events,
T-shirt making, other services,
posters, and workshops).
198 Given the impact of enforcement of the

challenged provisions on affected
individuals and on Puentes mission,
Puente members have decided it must
devote its limited resources to helping
those affected by enforcement. No other
organization can provide such assistance
in a consistent manner.
Garcia Decl. 50.
199 Maricopa County collects a special Jail

Excise Tax that goes towards funding
the operation of the County jails and
detention facilities. In FY 2015, the
County received a reported total of
$140,492,834 from this Tax.
MCAO-022035, MCAO 022083-94,

MCAO-023057-58 [Lai Decl. Ex.
148] at MCAO-022089 (excerpt from
Maricopa County FY 2016 Budget
Report describing Jail Excise Tax);
Scharbach Decl. [Lai Decl. Ex. 108]
4; see also MCAO-022034 [Lai Decl.
Ex. 149] (showing Detention Sales
Tax revenue and expenditure
information for FY 2014 and FY
2015).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
200 In 2014, it cost approximately $266 to

book someone into the Maricopa County 7.
jail and approximately $80 per day to
detain a person there.
201 Maricopa County also assesses a
primary property tax for residential
property owners at a tax rate per $100 of
assessed value.

6; MCAO 022035, MCAO 02208394, MCAO-023057-58 [Lai Decl. Ex.
148] at MCAO-023057-58 (excerpt
from Maricopa County FY 2016
Budget Report showing property tax
as the leading source of revenue for
County general fund).
202 Plaintiff Frederick-Gray pays property

tax to Maricopa County.
Frederick Gray Decl. 4-6 and Exs.

A & B; 3425 002827-002830 [Lai
Decl. Ex. 150] (Maricopa County
Assessors Office lists Susan
Frederick-Gray as the owner of her
home in Phoenix)
203 Plaintiff Burnette pays property tax to

Maricopa County.
Burnette Decl. 4-5 and Ex. A.
204 Plaintiff Tamayo pays property tax to
Tamayo Decl. 4-5 and Ex. A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38
Maricopa County.
1
2
205 Plaintiff Frederick-Gray pays sales tax

to Maricopa County.
Frederick Gray Decl. 7.
206 Plaintiff Burnette pays sales tax to

Maricopa County.
Burnette Decl. 6.
207 Plaintiff Tamayo pays sales tax to

Maricopa County.
Tamayo Decl. 6.
208 Reverend Frederick-Gray believes the

challenged laws are immoral and unjust
and has suffered mental and emotional
anguish from seeing her taxpayer funds
used to enforce them.
Frederick Gray Decl. 9.
209 Reverend Tamayo believes the

challenged laws are unjust and immoral.
Tamayo Decl. 8.
210 Reverend Burnette believes the

challenged laws are unjust and immoral.
Burnette Decl. 8.
211 Plaintiff Sara Cervantes Arreola was

arrested by MCSO on February 9, 2012
on charges of violating the worker
identity provisions and forgery statute as
part of an MCSO raid on Lams
Supermarket
MCAO 002168-70 [Lai Decl. Ex.

151] (State of Arizona, County of
Maricopa, Release Questionnaire);
3425 002800-01 [Lai Decl. Ex. 152]
(Maricopa County Sheriffs Office
Arrest/Booking Record).
212 Ms. Cervantes Arreola was prosecuted

by MCAO for violations of the worker
identity provisions and the forgery
statute.

153] (Indictment).
213 Ms. Cervantes Arreola received a

conviction on May 6, 2013 of identity
theft under A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3).

154] (Judgment of Maricopa County
Superior Court); Ex. D to State of
Arizona's First Supp. Resp. to Pls.'
First Set of Requests for Production at
8-11 [Lai Decl. Ex. 155] (Database
Search Results and Disposition
Report).
214 Ms. Cervantes Arreola was convicted

for using false identifying information to
establish work eligibility under federal
immigration law and for no other
purpose.
MCAO 002174 [Lai Decl. Ex. 156]

(State of Arizona, County of
Maricopa Release Questionnaire
Supplemental - Prop 100 Questions);
Cervantes Arreolas Resp. to
Montgomerys Requests for
Admission Nos. 2, 4 [Lai Decl. Ex.
157].
215 Plaintiff Elia Estrada Fernandez was
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39
1
2
3
4
prosecuted by MCAO for violations of

the worker identity provisions and the
forgery statute.
216 Ms. Estrada Fernandez received a
conviction on November 26, 2014 of
identity theft under A.R.S. 132009(A)(3).
Maricopa County Superior Court

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence
[Lai Decl. Ex. 161]; Ex. D to State of
Arizona's First Supp. Resp. to Pls.'
First Set of Requests for Production at
1-2 [Lai Decl. Ex. 159] (Database
Search Results and Disposition
Report).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
217 Ms. Estrada Fernandez was convicted

Estrada Dep. at 79:12-14, 81:7-18
for using false identifying information to [Lai Decl. Ex. 132].
establish work eligibility under federal
immigration law and for no other
purpose.
218 The judgment and sentence for Ms. Sara
Cervantes Arreolas conviction under
A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3) was entered on
May 6, 2013. She was sentenced to a
suspended sentence and 12 months
probation

154] (Judgment of Maricopa County
Superior Court).
219 On December 5, 2013, Ms. Cervantes

Arreola was granted early release from
probation.
Excerpt from Ex. B to State of

Arizona's Resp. to Pls. First Set of
Requests for Production [Lai Decl.
Ex. 160] (Order of Discharge from
Probation).
220 The judgment and sentence for Ms.

Estrada Fernandezs conviction under
A.R.S. 13-2009(A)(3) was entered on
November 26, 2014. She was sentenced
to a suspended sentence and six months
probation.
Maricopa County Superior Court

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence
[Lai Decl. Ex. 161]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
158] (Complaint).
221 On April 16, 2015, Ms. Estrada

Ex. 6 to Estrada Fernandez Dep. [Lai
Fernandez was granted early release
Decl. Ex. 134] (Order of Discharge
from probation. She served
from Probation).
approximately four and a half months on
probation.
222 A Rule 32 proceeding is the only means
by which a defendant who has pled
guilty can obtain appellate review of her
or his conviction in the Arizona courts.
Higgins Decl. at 4.
223 It is not possible to litigate a Rule 32

petition to a decision by the Arizona
Court of Appeals within seven months.
Higgins Decl. at 5.
27
28
40
1
2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of July, 2016.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By
/s/ Anne Lai

Anne Lai
Sameer Ashar
University of California, Irvine School of
Law Immigrant Rights Clinic
401 E. Peltason Dr., Ste. 3500
Irvine, CA 92616-5479
Sarah Anchors
Hector Diaz
Edward J. Hermes
Jose A. Carrillo
QUARLES & BRADY LLP
Renaissance One
Two North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391
Jessica Karp Bansal
Network
675 S. Park View St., Ste. B
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Jessica Myers Vosburgh
Network
2104 Chapel Hill Rd.
Birmingham, AL 35216
Cindy Pnuco
Joshua Piovia-Scott
Dan Stormer
Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP
128 North Fair Oaks Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91103
Daniel J. Pochoda
ACLU Foundation of Arizona
3707 N. 7th St., Ste. 235
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Ray A. Ybarra Maldonado
Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra

Maldonado, PLC
2701 E. Thomas Rd., Ste. A
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

41
1
2
3
On the brief:
Jonathan Langer
Tryphena Liu
Edgar Navarrette
Mallory Whitelaw
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 1st day of July, 2016, I electronically transmitted the
attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice of
this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing
system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
6
7
Dated: July 1, 2016

Phoenix, Arizona
/s/ Debra L. Hitchens
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
43
Puente Arizona et al v. Arpaio et al, Docket No. 2:14-cv-01356 (D. Ariz. Jun 18, 2014), Court Docket
General Information
Court
United States District Court for the District of Arizona; United

States District Court for the District of Arizona
Federal Nature of Suit
Constitutionality of State Statutes[950]
Docket Number
2:14-cv-01356
2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service
// PAGE 46

Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Puente - Arizona - Et - Al - v. - Arpai Statement of Facts in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 45

Anne Lai (pro hac vice)

Jessica Karp Bansal (pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Puente Arizona, et al.,

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 45

Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Jessica Myers Vosburgh (pro

Law Office of Ray A. Ybarra

Cindy Pnuco (pro hac vice)

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 3 of 45

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

THE FEDERAL SCHEME GOVERNING EMPLOYMENT OF

In his signing statement for the

PUENTE P 000361-000365 [Lai

In devising the federal scheme

PUENTE P 000418-423, 428, 430

PUENTE P 000366-368 [Lai Decl.

In its worksite enforcement efforts, U.S.

PUENTE P 000378-393 [Lai Decl.

Declaration of Anne Lai In Support Of Plaintiffs Motion For Partial Summary

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 4 of 45

Recognizing that enforcement actions

PUENTE P 000378-393 [Lai Decl.

ICE guidance states that it will exercise

PUENTE P 000374-376 [Lai Decl.

Federal officials recently created an

PUENTE P 000377 [Lai Decl. Ex. 7]

The Judiciary Committee Report for

PUENTE P 000355-357 [Lai Decl.

In 1994, the United States, Mexico and

PUENTE P 000394-000395 [Lai

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PASSAGE OF H.B. 2779 AND H.B. 2745.

In 2007, Arizona enacted House Bill

PUENTE P 000001-000011 [Lai

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 5 of 45

create a new ground of aggravated

The sponsors of H.B. 2779 included

PUENTE P 0000012-000030 [Lai

In 2008, Arizona enacted House Bill

PUENTE P 000012-000030 [Lai

An official summary of H.B. 2745

PUENTE P 012638-41, PUENTE P

The sponsors of H.B. 2745 included

PUENTE P 0000124-000134 [Lai

During a House Government Committee

PUENTE P 000101 [Lai Decl. Ex.

According to an April 2006 Center for

Pearce believes that, after H.B. 2779

Case 2:14-cv-01356-DGC Document 520 Filed 07/01/16 Page 6 of 45

the state, and that the Courts

20:25) [Lai Decl. Ex. 25] (explaining

The final Senate Fact Sheet for H.B.

PUENTE P 000107-119 [Lai Decl.

In an email alert circulated by Pearce,

PUENTE 005121-26, Ex. 185 to

H.B. 2745 included a provision that

PUENTE P 000012-30 [Lai Decl. Ex.

In a May 23, 2007 Senate Committee of

PUENTE P 000105 [Lai Decl. Ex.