Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Summary
No summary available.
Participants
Transcript
I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the monitoring of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Without objection, Mr. Fry will be permitted to participate in today's hearing. We'll receive five minutes or more to question the witnesses. This is, I want everyone to understand, this is an official congressional hearing, even though it is being held in Phoenix at this Arizona State Legislature. We will abide by all the rules of the House of Representatives and the House Judiciary Committee. This is being televised live by C-SPAN. which is a norm for federal congressional hearings. Thus, we expect the quorum to be enforced just like we would if we were sitting in a hearing room in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. I also want to offer a short explanation because I served here for many years, and there is a distinction between what happens in a state legislative hearing and a a federal congressional hearing in a state legislative hearing it is common for the public to have access to microphones and be able to speak that is not the norm nor typical i've never actually seen it in frankly in a congressional hearing i don't believe it's permissible but that's why we have witnesses that come and testify and that's the way That's one of the big distinctions between a state hearing and a congressional hearing.
So I wanted to clarify that. Now, without further ado, I recognize myself for an opening statement. I thank everyone who is participating in today's field hearing in the beautiful state capital of Phoenix, Arizona. I thank our witnesses for being here. I thank the staff and the media who are here and I thank mostly citizens who are here or watching this live for participating in that way. While today's hearing is focused on the special monitor here in Maricopa County, it has implications for residents across this nation who also find their law enforcement agencies held hostage by a special monitor or a similar situation. since december 2013 the maricopa county sheriff's office has been under federal judicial oversight following a department of justice investigation into a case that started in 2008 ortega melindris versus arpaio in 2007 latino motorists and passengers aided by the aclu filed the lawsuit against maricopa county and then share then sheriff joe arpaio the The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the fourth and 14th amendments by engaging in a systemic systematic practice of unconstitutional racial profiling, including stopping detaining and arresting Latino individuals during traffic stops, and patrol operations based on race or perceived immigration status. Following a bench trial in December 2011, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow ruled in 2013 that MCSO had violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions that required MCSO to implement sweeping reforms to policies, training, operations, and internal investigations. Unlike a consent decree, which is a negotiated settlement agreed to by the parties, the court imposed these injunctions after findings of liability. DOJ consent decrees are typically entered into voluntarily by state or local governments to resolve a civil rights investigation without a trial, even though they can result in similarly extensive federal oversight and court-appointed monitoring.
In January 2014, Judge Snow appointed Federal Court Monitor Robert Warshaw to oversee MCSO's compliance with the Court's permanent injunctions, including reforms intended to address racial discrimination during traffic stops and deficiencies in policy development and oversight. Following that, in July 2015, the Court mandated additional remedial measures, including further policy revisions to further strengthen oversight mechanisms. The federal court monitoring was intended to last only until MCSO achieved full and effective compliance with the court's injunctions. Yet oversight has continued for more than a decade without a fixed end date. As the federally appointed court monitor, some of Warshaw's tasks include assessing MCSO's adherence to judicial orders, issuing periodic reports, holding community meetings, and reviewing MCSO internal practices and policies. This extended judicial supervision has placed significant financial burdens on Maricopa County taxpayers, with costs reportedly reaching nearly $350 million since 2013. Most of these expenses include the administrative efforts needed to demonstrate compliance with court orders. For example, despite remote work and meetings in 2021, the county was responsible for funding a 3,200 square foot office suite for the monitor, costing taxpayers more than $97,000 for a year. That's in spite of remote working. This persistent federal judicial intervention has created operational challenges for MCSO, including difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified deputies. The increased administrative workload and ongoing scrutiny have led to a decline in staff retention, have discouraged potential recruits from pursuing careers within the department, which ultimately has impacted on the office's ability to serve and protect the community. The federal court monitor typically issues quarterly reports which track the MCSO's compliance with the court-ordered reforms and provided the court with independent assessments of policy implementation, operational practices, and overall progress.
Over the course of more than 40 reports, MCSO's compliance rate increased from 30% in 2014 to more than 94% by 2025, meeting the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94% of instances under review. According to Warshaw, the MCO's compliance framework has become self-sustaining and institutionalized. While compliance measurements are based on documented adherence and subject to court review, they are not determined by the monitor. Warshaw also labeled MCSO's compliance with policies, training, and supervisory review as solid, noting that the compliance measures were fully built into the agency's daily work, showing full independent accountability. Last month, the Trump administration's Justice Department filed a brief supporting Maricopa County's request to end federal oversight, noting that the litigation has been successful in reforming the agency. The department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the consent decree or the judgment have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case and that MCSO has demonstrated sustained systemic compliance. The department cited multiple recent monitor reports documenting consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The department indicated that continued federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of both the consent decree, the court-appointed monitoring regime, and the court's order. Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction lining the pockets of Robert Warshaw and his associates. Warshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results in monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.