department took the virtually unprecedented step of filing a lawsuit to force mcso to comply. this lawsuit successfully caused mcso to meet its legal obligations and it was settled in june 2011. six months later the department issued its letter of findings detailing the results of our investigation. our investigation found that there is reasonable cause to believe that mcso and sheriff arpio engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminate to her policing of latinos, a pattern or practice of unlawful or retaliatory behavior of perceived critics through baseless criminal complaints, unfounded civil lawsuits, and meritless administrative actions and skrim to her jail practices against latino persons with limited english skills. after we issued our findings letter last december, we tried to reach a negotiated settlement. the united states is not seeking and has never sought monetary

damages or attorneys fees in connection with our case and although title vi authorizes the internal funding that they receive from the department of justice. we sought and continue to seek to accomplish one important goal, to fix the problems identified in our investigation and to ensure that the necessary policies, practices and oversight are in place so that mcso and sheriff arpio comply with the constitution and laws of the united states and as a result the county become safer and better. we traveled to phoenix in early february and met with lawyers for mcso and sheriff arpio and roy austin who leads the team to my left was there, sergio perez, also a member of the team and to my right has been very involved in these efforts. we met with attorneys for the county and the sheriff and we met with them and we discussed the parameters of a potential

settlement. we made it clear orally and in writing a settlement would require an independent monitor. later that month we gave mcso a 128 page draft settlement agreement which we hoped would serve as a framework for further discussion. unfortunately, the further discussions were brief and negotiations broke down primarily because mcso and the sheriff would not agree to any settlement that included an independent monitor. a monitor in general and specifically in a case of this nature is not a new requirement. monitors have been critical components of our settlements in other police cases from los angeles to pittsburgh to elsewhere and they play an important role in ensuring that the reforms are carried out in an effective, fair, and sustainable fashion. ronald reagan was correct. trust but verify. monitors do not usurp the

functions of sheriffs. there was a provision that i quote shall not and is not intended to replace or assume the role or duties of the defendant including the sheriff, unquote. monitors work collaboratively with the sheriff's office, police departments, courts, communities, and the department of justice to provide necessary support and assistance to ensure that the problems are fixed and effective in sustainable fashion. unfortunately this provision was unacceptable to the sheriff and mcso and negotiations ceased. left with it is choice, earlier today we filed a civil complaint in the united states district court against sheriff arpio, the maricopa county sheriff's office, and maricopa county. the police are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not divide them. at its core this is an abusive -- the police are supposed to protect and serve our communities, not divide them. at its core this is an abuse of

power case involving a sheriff and a sheriff's office that disregarded the constitution, ignored sound police practices, compromised public safety, and did not hesitate to retaliate against perceived critics. constitutional policing and effective policing go hand-in-hand. our complaint alleges that defendants actions were neither constitutional nor effective. there are three categories of claims in the complaint. first, the complaint alleges that mcso's police practices unlawfully discriminate against latinos in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights. it is the sheriff's perogative to set law enforcement priorities for his agency. whatever his priorities, he must carry them out in a manner that is consistent with his constitutional and statutory obligations. law enforcement agencies can not cut constitutional corners in the pursuit of their objectives and the complaint alleges that

from at least 2006 to the present mcso officers have unlawfully discriminated against latinos and violated their constitutional rights in a number of ways including racial profiling of latinos in traffic stop settings, unlawful detention, searches, and arrests of latino drivers and passengers and unlawful targets and illegal detention of latinos during home and work site raids. the complaint further alleges that mcso failed to adopt basic policy training and internal oversight practices to monitor these police activities, examine their effectiveness, and prevent unlawful activities. for instance, despite the fact that the traffic operations have very low success rates and very high rates of stopping latino u.s. citizens and legal residents, the specialized units have received little oversight and inadequate training. if you look latino the complaint

alleges, you are all too frequently fair game for mcso officers. the second category of claim in the complaint is that mcso's krekdsal practices violate the constitutional and statutory rights of latino prisoners and mcso prison that is have limited english skills. it is essential as a safety matter as well as a civil rights compliance matter for officials who administer a jail to ensure their employees with effectively communicate with prisoners who have limited english skills. mcso in fact recognizes this obligation and in a position statement dated june of 2010 mcso noted the importance of providing language assistance to prisoners stating that such assistance is, quote, essential to the overall operation of the jails and the safety of the prisoners and the officers. the complaint outlines how mcso has failed to put this policy in practice in its jails.

mcso and the sheriff routinely failed to provide necessary spanish language assistance to latino prisoners with limited english skills. as the complaint outlines mcso detention officers routinely issue commands only in english and in some instances when latino prisoners with limited english skills failed to follow a command given in english because they couldn't understand it, the detention officers placed an entire area of a jail in lockdown. this practice obviously insights unwarranted hostility toward inmates, potentially placing prisoners and officers alike in harm's way n other circumstances mcso detention officers have forced latino prisoners with limited english skills to sign key legal documents that are printed in english which they can't understand and in which they have for fitted or potentially for fitted key rights. mcso's failure to provide effective language officers is a violation of the civil rights of

latino prisoners with limited english skills as well as a substantial departure from generally accepted krekdsal standards. the third category in the complaint flow from the sheriff and mcso's pattern or practice of retaliating against perceived critics of mcso practices. the complaint outlines a number of instances where mcso and the sheriff have targeted a range of people including judges, lawyers, and community leaders who made statements or took actions or simply doing their job and they were folk that is they disliked or perceived were critical of mcso or the sheriff. a hallmark of our democracy is freedom of expression. it is key kwally important that dedicated public servants are able to carry out their responsibilities without fear of unlawful re tall to her reprisals. the complaint outlines a series of actions by mcso design the to silence and punish critics they

perceived to be against what they were trying to do with the added effect of killing would-be critics and they were directed at public officials, judges, and private citizens engaged in lawful protests. for instance, the complaint quotes from a recent opinion arising out of an ethics complaint filed against the former county attorney and two assistants that found that the sheriff and others were involved in a, quote, concerted effort to wrestle power from the maricopa county board of supervisors, county officials, and superior court judges and to instill fear in the hearts of those who would resist, unquote. nobody is above the law. nobody can misuse the legal process to silence those with different opinions. now, leadership starts at the top. all of the alleged violations outlined in the complaint are a product of a culture of disregard for basic rights

within mcso that starts at the top and pre vaids the entire organization. the complaint allege that is mcso employees frequently use derogatory terms such as, quote, betback, unquote, and, quote, mexican pitches unquote, to refer to latinos and touch words and actions exemplify the culture of bias that contributes to unlawful actions n terms of next steps, the matter will now be assigned to a federal judge and we'll follow the judge's direction. our goal remains the same, we want to fix the problems and work collaboratively with the defendants, the communities, and the court to devise and implement a comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform. we recognize the hard and dangerous work law enforcement officers at mcso do day in and day out. our job here and our work here is intended to make their work more effective, more rewarding, and to make the community safer and better.

i would rather fix the problem than debate the existence of a problem. i have said that many times. it was ironic yesterday, the same day that the defendants received our letter informing them that a lawsuit was imminent, that the sheriff released a 17-page document entitled, quote, integrity accountability community, unquote. we see these 17 pages as largely an admission of the existence of a problem. as our complaint states, mcso's failure to ensure integrity and accountability led to a crisis of confidence within key corners of the community. while it is note worthy and perhaps heartening that a number of the changes in this document appear to be taken directly from the 128-page proposed settlement agreement that we provided back in february, this too little too late document cobbled together beyond the 11th hour is no tub institute for meaningful reform. it is time to forge a

comprehensive sustainable solution that includes effective independent oversight. unfortunately today's complaint and the time consuming path that will follow is the only way forward. i look forward to taking any questions that you may have. yes? >> in the opening you said this was rare. can you explain exactly what you mean by that? >> sure. the police reform statute that i am referring to is called section 14141 was enacted in the aftermath of the los angeles rye on the following the rodney king verdict. it has been in place as a result for about 18 years. during that period the department has been forced to file contested litigation, a lawsuit that was not a lawsuit that was being filed in connection with a consent decree or other resolution. quite literally, only once, involved a columbus police department and that case, too, was ultimately settled between the parties and so in the scores

of other cases we have been able to work collaboratively with law enforcement agencies because we have a shared interest in proving the department and making the community safer. this is truly extraordinary just as our lawsuit in 2010 was truly extraordinary because law enforcement agencies had routinely complied with their obligations and the previous time that a lawsuit was forced to be filed by the department similar to the one that was filed in 2010, the previous time that a similar suit had to be filed was 1979, so there were 31 years between those two suits and again the rare itie and the extraordinary nature of this is unfortunate, and i was asked by someone how long will the process moving forward take? that's entirely up to the sheriff. it is entirely up to mcso. it is entirely up to the county. they have a 128-page document that can serve as the blueprint

for discussions. they may not agree with everything. that's what a negotiation is about. i would rather get to the table and fix the problem so that we can address some of the serious public safety and civil rates challenges confronting this community. >> why is the monitor so critical in your mind? why not just hand them a list of things to comply with, see how he does and revisit the monitor situation if it doesn't work out? >> we tried that in 1997 when there was an agreement with problems at the jail and there was no monitor there and there is a we will trust you and you do it and history has repeated itself, so when you have problems that are as deeply rooted as they are here, when you have a prior history of backsliding, it is simply a recipe for history further repeating itself to not have an independent monitor, and i would note that on the last page of the report issued yesterday, the sheriff himself noted that they will continue to use the

services of outside independent experts to ensure that their strategies are good and so that is to me an acknowledgment that external oversight can be a good thing and so if indeed there are great things that are going to become of this document, and can take place in the department, then they should have nothing to fear from an independent monitor just like the monitor in los angeles who was able to be a very, very productive force in bringing fort productive change. yes, sir? >> if you're a latino person in the northeast valley in scottsdale, for example, how much more likely are you to be pulled over than an anglo person? >> the complaint has a number of paragraphs that address that issue, and as was noted in the letter of finding, we among other things in the course of our investigation enlisted the expertise of one of the nation's preeminent experts in racial profiling who did a traffic

study and found and this is noted on paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 of the complaint that depending on where you were in the county, latino drivers were anywhere from four times to nine times more likely to be stopped by mcso officers than non-latino drivers engaged in similar conduct, and so the complaint alleges in those three paragraphs that again, if you were latino, you were all too frequently fair game, and the majority of people stopped were either u.s. citizens or lawful permanent residents or people otherwise authorized to be in the united states. >> mr. perez, i have a quick question. what is the possibility that the department of justice joining in the current lawsuit filed by aclu and nadol concerning racial profiling already scheduled?

is there any possibility of that? >> the court will now make a determination as to whether this is in fact a related case and if so, the case could be assigned to judge snow, and then it would be up to judge snow to figure out the appropriate next steps and we will of course comply with whatever directives he would issue. yes, ma'am? >> if you're saying this is a case of abuse of power, can you explain to the public why there are not criminal charges involved? >> i cannot comment on any criminal investigations under way. >> the county attorney and the sheriff and others have all said that why isn't the justice department showing us their case, showing us the evidence they have as it tries to negotiate this? what's your response to that? >> we have -- they have access and have received more information and there was a question about the molenderes case and regarding the issues and discriminate to her policing

of latinos, i would be hard pressed to think of a department on greater notice of the nature and extent of the allegations of skrim to her policing than this department is on notice and so it is curious to me that they would fain surprise and in fact when the materials that constituted the majority of our investigative findings were materials that were already in their possession and so we now have a complaint process and we will now move to discovery and hopefully we will move to settlement and we're prepared to move to discovery and we'll move forward as the court so instructs. >> we started this case in 2008, and this case could have been brought to resolution far sooner, and i outlined what happened. we had to take the extraordinary step in 2010 because frankly we were stone walled. as i mentioned, prior to 2010 it

had been 31 years since the department had to file a similar lawsuit to the one that we filed in 2010 seeking basic access to information. when you get federal funds, you sign a form. the form says i will comply with civil rights laws and when i get asked questions, and asked for information, i will provide it. that's why we don't have to file suit because other jurisdictions understand that, and so this case was undeniably delayed for longer than i would want but justice has indeed been delayed but we are leer here to say that justice will not be denied and we'll continue to move forward. >> what about the politics of washington and having oversight and review of these practices in arizona? >> well, again, we reached agreements with police departments across the country, and i think i read to you in my remarks the language they've had

since february about a monitor. one of the key interventions in los angeles, los angeles police department was'90s. and they have reformed in remarkable ways public confidence is up. crime has gone down. remarkable progress. and everybody would agree, and independent studies have verified that the independent monitor who didn't take over lapd, the monitor in pittsburgh didn't take over the pittsburgh police department. cincinnati monitor didn't take over the cincinnati police department. but they were critical components to that reform because you need -- the community needs that. the department needs that. and it's part of the rebuilding of confidence. having that independent person in there who can help them through a number of challenges. and los angeles is perhaps the best example of how an effective monitor has been able to serve a

remarkably important role. monitors aren't something to fear. they are something to embrace when you have problems. but if you don't acknowledge the existence of a problem, then it's hard to embrace the need for reform. yes, ma'am? >> when this investigation began there have been many changes theattop of mcso. one thing you've been hearing here locally is from our county attorney is that i want to know these practices are continuing to this day, since i've taken over. i've asked the fed to give me the evidence of anything that has happened since the time i've taken office. and he says that he's not found any response. he continued today to say this is continuing to go on. these practices are continuing. do you mean to this day? do you mean in the past six months? elaborate, please. >> we're going to interest g into the discovery process now. the complaint alleges from at least in the category of the discriminatory policing, the complaint dates back from at least 2006 to the present in the

jail context. i think the dates, 2009 and the retaliatory actions date back to 2006 as well. and the discovery process will allow us to move forward in those actions. we sent a letter to the county attorney in response to a letter that he had sent back in, i think we sent him a letter april 8th or 10th, something like that, which detailed -- was a detailed response to his concerns and again, we continue to be willing to sit down and to do -- to accomplish and seek to accomplish what we have been able to accomplish in virtually every other context we've been in. this is a remarkable outlier community in terms of the inability to forge consensus. and the extraordinary efforts we've had to take simply to get information. yes, sir. >> you mentioned lapd several times. how do our problems here compare

with those that you all faced in los angeles? >> every community has a different set of problems. there's overlapping challenges as well. and what is overlapping is that you really -- in all the cases that we're working on, you're trying to effect culture change. culture change is not easy. doesn't happen overnight. and the culture change that occurred in los angeles was the evolution to an understanding that effective policing and constitutional policing go hand in hand. that you can comply with the constitution, ensure public safety. in fact, enhance public safety and enhance your standing in the community. that's the three-legged stool and we'll continue to work toward that end here. if they express renewed interest in doing so. yes, ma'am? >> again, i'm going to go back because the -- the allegations, but not the evidence. what kind of evidence are you able to elaborate on and --

>> again, you have the complaint here. we now have a process. the process is you now have discovery. we'll do that and comply with all orders issued by the court. >> yes, sir. i have a question. obviously you know this is an election year. we don't know what's going to happen. the discovery process and so forth is expected to take a long time. does anything change if sheriff arpaio suddenly isn't in office anymore or does the investigation continue? would things change with a different leader of the department? >> this investigation was initiated in june of 2008. i was not working at the department of justice in 2008. president obama was not working at 1600 pennsylvania avenue in 2008. this investigation will continue. >> sheriff arpaio wasn't in office, not the -- >> i think sheriff arpaio was in office in 2008. >> you are trying to correct problems within the department, you know if he were to leave, i'm saying, and someone else was running the department next

year, would that change it? >> no, we have to fix the problems. the problems are systemic. sheriff arpaio has been identified as a person involved in creating the culture that has problematic implications. but there are other issues. this is about systems. and reforming systems. so that we have effective constitutional policing that helps to reduce crime and ensure public confidence. and it's something that we will continue to be here as long as is necessary to fix that problem. >> sir, why is maricopa county named as a defend, and what is potentially at risk for maricopa county and its taxpayers in the penalty phase? >> maricopa county is a recipient of federal financial assistance from the department of justice. maricopa county then takes a portion of that assistance and maricopa county sheriff's office is a subrecipient. so the money passes through the county to the sheriff's office. when you accept that assistance,

you sign assurances that you will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin nor will any of the subrecipients to whom you give money discriminate. and so they have liability. when we spoke and wrote to the county attorney back in april, we explicitly noted that. so he has certainly been on notice. he participated as you are probably aware in the february 6th settlement discussions that we had. and so that is the role of maricopa county in this particular case. >> you said that you continue to be willing to sit down. your last letter to them essentially said that negotiations are over. are you still going to sit down? >> i'm willing to -- they have the document. they have a 128-page document. we have to make a finding that we have exhausted all of our efforts. we have exhausted them and then some. and that is why we're here

today. we always, in any case that we are involved in in the division, are willing to sit down and discuss solutions. time is of the essence. the stakes are high. there are public safety implications to this. i want to build a safer community. i'm hopeful that sheriff arpaio feels the same way. i'd love to do that. but it takes two to participate. and we've been unable to get there and that's why we're here today. >> are you at all positive that you'll be able to get this thing settled before going to court? >> that is a question that i would invite you to ask sheriff arpaio and mcso. they have the 128-page document. they have read it because there are a number of items in this document that reflect the fact they've read it, and did would be a wonderful thing for this

community if we could come together and forge solutions. the solutions or the potential solutions are noted in the 128-page document. we have thought about that. we've thought about, how do you fix the problem? we've reduced it to writing. in other communities, we've then taken that written document and had a back and forth. you red line it. you say, i agree with this, i don't agree with that and come to consensus. a sticking point from the county's perspective is that he wants no independent monitor. i hope he will change his position on that because that in light of the very serious allegations here, is untenable. >> so is that the line in the sand then? you guys can't -- >> we'll wait and see and we're moving forward. >> one more. >> okay. >> if this is a legal move and these practices are still happening to this day, what happens next and can you file that injunction?

how do you stop it? >> again, we now move to the discovery phase. we will undoubtedly have an appearance with the court at a time that the court sets, and we will be there. our team will be there. and we will follow the court's direction on how best to proceed. and i am confident that will be very soon. >> thank you. these men go through things, and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover who were two such personally and politically different men, and who ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have anticipated and ended up being enormously productive. and formed the foundation of what became a very deep friendship. the letters