“The Monitoring Racket: The Grift that Keeps on Giving”

The committee will come to order. I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. [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 and will 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 the 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 decorum to be enforced just like we would if we were sitting in a hearing room in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. And 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 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, frankly, in a congressional hearing. I don't believe it's permissible. But that's why we have witnesses that will come to 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 capitol 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 Melendres v. Arpaio. In 2007, Latino motorists and passengers, aided by the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against Maricopa County and then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The lawsuit alleged that MCSO violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments by engaging in a 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 percent in 2014 to more than 94 percent by 2025, meeting the standard that requires the agency to demonstrate adherence in more than 94 percent of instances under review. According to Warshaw, the MCSO'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. For example, Warshaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks of federal oversight in Oakland, California, one of the longest-running federal police oversight regimes in U.S. history since a 2003 settlement. In 2024, 1,508 complaints were filed against OPD's, Oakland Police Department, 710 sworn officers, and were nearly universally, nearly all were completely dismissed. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warshaw is paid more than $1 million annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship. Warshaw's monitorship is criticized for its expansive scope and prolonged duration. Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warshaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management. Questions about judgment and incentives have also followed Warshaw's consulting contracts elsewhere. In Niagara Falls, New York, for example, Warshaw was retained at a rate of $200 an hour, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over two years, despite the mayor's initial public estimate that the contract would total only $57,000. Together, these episodes have been cited by critics as emblematic of a pattern in which Warshaw's work unfolds with limited transparency, minimal external check on the expansion or duration of his authority. I look forward to hearing from today's panel and I thank the members and witnesses for taking part and for the public's interest in attending. I yield back. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. And now I'll introduce today's witnesses. Ms. Debbie Lesko. Ms. Lesko represents the Fourth District on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, where she is also the vice chair. She has previously served as our colleague in the House of Representatives from 2018 to 2025, and she also served in the Arizona Legislature from 2009 to 2018. Thank you, Supervisor Lesko. Mr. Felix Garcia is a member of the Community Advisory Board for the monitor of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. He is also the president and CEO of the Zoë Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides materials and resources to families and businesses. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, for being with us today. Mr. John Riches is vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation and also serves as the Goldwater Institute's general counsel. He litigates in federal and state courts across the country on issues including economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, taxpayer protection, government transparency, and other issues. We welcome our witnesses. Thank you for appearing today, and now we will ask you to stand and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do each of you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?