“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?

I do.

I do.

I do.

Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety and, without objection, we'll allow each of you considerable leeway on the normal five-minute time constraint. Hearing none. Ms. Lesko, oh no, we're not going to begin with you, Ms. Lesko. We're going to actually begin with Mr. Garcia. So we're going to go back this way. So Mr. Garcia, we welcome you here today and recognize you for your opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Felix Garcia. I am a volunteer member of the Community Advisory Board connected with this case. I want to clear today I am speaking in my personal capacity. My opinions are my own and they don't represent the other members of the board who may have different views. I decided to serve because I believe in building trust between law enforcement and the community they serve, especially with my community, the Hispanic community. Oversight of law enforcement is important as it helps protect civil rights, ensure accountability, and build trust when it has been broken. There is no doubt that at one time court supervision played an important role in Maricopa County. But oversight should be measured by results. After more than 10 years under federal monitoring at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to taxpayers, it's fair to ask an important question: Is the current system still helping our community to move forward? Over the past year, I've been working directly with the community through my nonprofit, working for over 10 years, but for the last year I've been working very close with the community and the sheriff, organized so many events and spoken to hundreds and hundreds of Latino leadership, faith, and families across the county. What I hear again and again is the people want safety, respect, transparency, and collaboration. I have personally seen engagement between the Sheriff's Office and the community that once felt disconnected from law enforcement, and that progress matters. So my opinion right now with this is, you know, my perception is the people, you know, support the Sheriff's Office. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We now go to Mr. Riches and recognize you for your opening statement.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is John Riches. I'm the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. That's a public policy and public interest litigation organization. I want to make two points this morning: one rooted in long-standing constitutional principles of federalism and the other rooted in democratic accountability and government transparency. First, under traditional principles of federalism, law enforcement and local spending decisions are and must remain primarily state and local functions, not ones administered indefinitely by federal officials. Second, when tax dollars are spent to operate local government, including and perhaps especially in the law enforcement context, state public records laws and public policy require transparency, not secrecy. Taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent. As to the federalism point, our Constitution leaves law enforcement to the responsibility of local officials. Indeed, the federal government has no general police power. Federal courts absolutely have the authority to remedy constitutional violations, but remedies are supposed to be temporary, targeted, and respectful of the state's paramount role in law enforcement, not substitutions for that role. Here, that structural balance has broken down. In Maricopa County, a federally appointed out-of-state monitor selected by one federal judge has exercised sweeping authority over a local sheriff's office for more than a decade at taxpayer expense exceeding $30 million just for the monitor's expenses. And there's no clear end date in sight. So at some point, oversight stops being remedial and starts becoming structural. And that raises constitutional concerns. When federal supervision is open-ended, it supplants local voters, it supplants local officials, and it supplants state law. The concern is particularly acute here where court decisions not only involve law enforcement but spending and ultimately taxation. These have been delegated to a federal agent with no accountability to the public. In that circumstance, there is a transfer of powers that the Constitution assigns to other branches and other levels of government. Our constitutional structure exists precisely to prevent this. Federal authority, even when well-intentioned, must be limited, reviewable, and constrained, or it violates principles of federalism that are an essential feature of our republic and a guardrail for the protection of individual liberty. That brings me to my second point: transparency. Under Arizona law and the law of virtually every state, records concerning the operation of government and the expenditure of public funds are presumptively public. The public has a right to know what their government is up to, and that right is essential to democratic accountability. The Arizona Supreme Court has made this clear time and again. Citizens cannot hold officials accountable if they are denied information about what those officials are doing and how they are spending their money. Yet in this case, millions of dollars are being spent with virtually no meaningful public disclosure. My organization, the Goldwater Institute, submitted state public records requests to the county and to the monitor seeking an itemized accounting of the monitor's invoices and basic salary information for the monitor's staff. Because of existing federal orders in this case, the county does not possess or cannot disclose that information, and the monitor simply didn't respond at all. Under state law, that outcome would not occur in any other context. For virtually every public expenditure—things from road construction, consulting contracts, law enforcement grants—itemized invoices and supporting documents are public records. Allowing taxpayer funds to be spent indefinitely without disclosure directly conflicts with Arizona's transparency laws. The only information that has been available to the public consists of heavily redacted or non-descript invoices. There's no detailed time entries, expense reports, or supporting documentation. None of that information has been disclosed to the very people on whose behalf and at whose expense the monitor is purportedly operating. That is not how government transparency is supposed to work, and that is not how it does work as a matter of state law. Secrecy may be justified temporarily to protect a legitimate government interest, but blanket secrecy for more than a decade, long after reforms have been implemented, cannot be squared with democratic norms. In sum, federalism exists to ensure that law enforcement and spending decisions remain locally and democratically accountable. Public records laws exist to ensure that taxpayers can see how their government is operating and how their money is being spent. And when federal oversight overrides both democratic control and transparency, it creates a system that inverts these core principles of our constitutional republic. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Riches. And now we recognize Supervisor Lesko for her opening statement.

Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It's great to be here with my former colleagues from Congress, and the chairman and I served right here in these chambers as our old stomping ground. So it's great to be here. And I really want to thank you for traveling here. This is a very important issue for Maricopa County and the taxpayers of Maricopa County and for public safety in Maricopa County. And that's what this is all about: making sure we protect the public. As a Maricopa County supervisor, I am here today to talk about the long-term damage caused by the federal court orders in Melendres v. Arpaio and, more specifically, the unchecked and costly monitor regime that has grown out of this case. It has become a clear example of how federal oversight, when left unchecked, can drift far beyond its original purpose at great cost in local control and taxpayers. This all started with a complaint against then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio alleging racial profiling of Latino drivers and passengers. Fourteen years, three sheriffs, and millions and millions of dollars per year later, the Sheriff's Office is still under this burdensome and costly federal monitor regime. For more than a decade, this monitoring process appears to be operating with virtually no limiting principle. What began as targeted oversight has evolved into an open-ended system where compliance seems to be constantly redefined, new requirements are layered on, and progress is never allowed to be final. The monitor's role has expanded far beyond verifying constitutional policies and instead has expanded into day-to-day operational micromanagement of the Sheriff's Department. And the consequences have been severe. Every dollar spent feeding this monitoring bureaucracy is a dollar not spent on deputies, patrols, training, crime prevention, or victim services. Every hour spent satisfying reporting demands is an hour not spent protecting our neighborhoods. The cumulative effect has been a long-term erosion of public safety capacity in Maricopa County. The public is told this is all necessary by the federal judge. But necessary for whom? The monitor is paid to find deficiencies, and the system seems structured so that their deficiencies are always found. Even when benchmarks are met, new interpretation seems to appear, new metrics emerge, the finish line moves. For example, I want to give you one example. Just last month, the monitor reversed himself and declared that the Sheriff's Office is not in compliance with a paragraph that has been in compliance for years. That paragraph requires the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office to submit training materials within 90 days of the order, which was satisfied back in June of 2016. Now, after a decade, the goalposts have yet again been moved. The monitor in this case is the same monitor who has been monitoring the Oakland, California Police Department for the last 25 years. And do you know what the kicker is? Existing court orders, as has been said before, dating back to 2014, prevent taxpayers from fully knowing where their money is even going. Detailed monitor billing and time entries are provided only to the court. The county itself is restricted from seeing that information, much less sharing that information with the public. That is not transparency. That is not accountability. And 12 years later, it's not justified. I want to be very clear. This is not about rejecting constitutional policing or resisting oversight. Maricopa County has made significant reforms, many of them at great expense and in good faith. The Sheriff's Office is doing a fantastic job. In fact, today, there is no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations. There are no new allegations of targeted immigration enforcement. And the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has achieved 100 percent compliance with required policy changes. The 2023 traffic study annual report that the court requires found no statistically significant difference between white drivers and Hispanic drivers across any measured benchmark. So late last year, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, of which I am a member, filed a Rule 60 motion seeking relief from this federal oversight. And I am happy to say that the United States Department of Justice supports a Rule 60 motion to end this oversight. So let's be clear. The county says it's time, the data says it's time, the monitor's own findings say it's time, and the United States Department of Justice says it's time to end this burdensome, bureaucratic, costly federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. It's time to recognize that federal monitoring is no longer needed. I say enough is enough. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, Supervisor Lesko. Appreciate that. Appreciate your testimony, all of your testimony. And now I will recognize for his questioning the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls.

Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I'm an old former sheriff from the great state of Texas, Fort Bend County. Relatively large agency, had about 800,000 people there and about 826 deputies. I feel I have some basic understanding on how to manage a law enforcement agency. I believe I understand the complexity that law enforcement are facing today across the country. And I do believe that public safety above all else is our number one priority, public safety. I am concerned with the impact of the federal judicial monitor on the ability of this Sheriff's Office to adequately investigate, solve, and deter crime. And I know, Mr. Chairman, you brought it up in your opening remarks, but I believe it's worth repeating. And like, how did we get here? How did this all begin? And when you go back to that Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio, the 2007-2008 timeframe, allegations surfaced of racial profiling in the Latino community. All right? In 2011, I guess there was a bench trial and then in 2013, the district judge, G. Murray Snow, ruled that the Sheriff's Office violated constitutional protections and imposed permanent injunctions, implementing the sweeping reforms, apparently it had to get done to the policies, to training, to operations, to internal investigations. 2014 then, the judge appoints Robert Warshaw as a federal court monitor. 2015, they come back a little bit and say we got to make some additional remedial measures. And so I have to ask for all of you, one at a time, is, was there at that time a need for this judicial oversight? Ms. Lesko? Just a yes or no, really. I mean, was there a need for it at the time?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Nehls. I was not involved at the time, but there were allegations and the federal court upheld them. And so they had a court order and said things need to be changed. What I can tell you for sure as a matter of fact is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has now gone through four sheriffs under this, and they have worked tirelessly to make reforms and make sure that they are in compliance. And so as I have said, they are in 100 percent compliance on their policies and many of the paragraphs. They have done everything over and above to satisfy this court, but it's never enough. It's never enough.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but my question is, at the time that the judge made the ruling back in 2014, was there a need for this type of judicial oversight? ...oversight, Mr. Riches.

Mr. Chairman, Congressman, federal courts do exist to remedy constitutional violations, and if the court finds a constitutional violation, they can put in place orders to remedy it. The question today, though, is very different than the question as to what happened then. And as Ms. Lesko indicated, we're now four sheriffs in and beyond the remedial purpose of the initial allegations in the case.

Sure. How about you, Mr. Garcia? Do you believe back then, when this judge, appointed by Bush, by the way, appointed by President Bush, do you believe that there was a need to have this back then? I mean, I was an old sheriff, 2012 to 2020, and I heard about show me your papers. I heard about this sheriff and tents and everything else. I mean, there was a lot of attention. They called him America's Sheriff. Do you feel at the time when the decision was made, I'm not talking about today, four different sheriffs now, three or four, but back at the time, was it necessary?

I think yes. I think in that moment it was necessary.

Thank you for... okay. So his job then, this Mr. Warshaw, was to, I guess, get the sheriff's office to comply with the permanent injunctions, the court order. His job, issue periodic reports, hold community meetings, which I'd like to get into a little bit, and then review the sheriff's office's internal policies and practices. So I want to talk a little bit about the periodic reports. I guess there are 40 plus reports that have been issued. These reports have shown significant improvements. I think, Ms. Lesko, you brought it up, 100 percent, you said it a few times. These reports have shown much improvement or compliance. The compliance rate back in 2014 was 30 percent. So I'm kind of believing, maybe back then there was a need. It was an order. And then you see we get into 2025 and we're at 94 percent. These 40 plus reports, I mean, the fourth report back in 2015 had a 40 percent compliance rate. The 26th report back in issued in 2020, they're up to 98 percent. Report number 33 and 34 back in 2022 and 2025 show compliance rates of 93, 94 percent. So it certainly appears to me that the sheriff's office has complied with all the aspects of this judicial ruling. And if I may, Mr. Garcia, I would like to start with you. If you could for me, I'm new to this here, I don't know who you are, but would you be willing to share with us a little bit about your background, how long have you lived here, and why are you on this committee? What's your community involvement been? What makes you, I don't want to say so special, but what made you part of this process?

So basically I live in Phoenix, Arizona for the last 26 years. I live in North Central Phoenix. I'm a Mexican-American born in Hermosillo, Mexico. So I'm working with the community for so many years with my nonprofit. In my nonprofit, we have one immigration program, especially for new citizenships. So we're very active in the community. With the last sheriff, working very close with Penzone and the Hispanic board, and with the new sheriff, I'm appointed with the sheriff to in this board.

Okay. And again, in the recent years, the sheriff's office has reached very successful compliance with this oversight of the judicial monitor. I believe you mentioned it in your opening that you believe the relationship today with the sheriff and the community he is charged to protect and serve is better today than what it once was.

It's excellent. I attend every single event with the sheriff. One special in November, we have one turkey event, our Holoton with La Prensa Arizona, and the sheriff is coming. And this is 100 percent Latinos come, first, second generation. And everybody in the event is interested to take pictures with the sheriff. Not only the people participate, but every person in the event. And we organize other events for the sheriff, and everybody is interested in interaction with the sheriff.

So you've, what you're saying is you've seen improved relationships. You're noticing it between the community and the sheriff's office. I mean, did when I started in my law enforcement career 30 years ago, I mean, community policing, it was the buzzword. It was the big deal, community policing. You don't have issues. The sheriff's office is or I'll just focus on major large municipal police, when there is friction or the sheriff's office or the police department and the people, the residents, when they have when there's distrust there, things are going to get ugly. And we've seen it across our nation over the past several years when there's a distrust. Did we you've been here this long, did you have you noticed, did we have community policing philosophy at the sheriff's office back in 2012 or 2008, 2009? Was that philosophy to build the relationships with the people?

Yeah, I'm working very close, with my nonprofit, I start working with the sheriff I think in 2014, 2016, and the relationship with the community is very active. After Sheriff Arpaio left, the inside everything start to change. So I see the difference right now and so it's good, I think.

Very good. So you believe that, I guess point blank, what's changed? Give me an example of what's changed now that you see all of a sudden now a strong relationship versus having a federal court get involved with these injunctions? I mean, what changed in that period of time? Attitudes? Different leadership style?

Leadership. I don't see so many stop with the Latino community. As you know, 150 to 200 people move from California to Arizona. So obviously the numbers is change because 200 people daily, daily move to Arizona. So...

Very good. How transparent and collaborative is communication between the community advisory board, which you serve on, Mr. Warshaw, and the sheriff's office leadership team?

So normally basically we have one meeting every month with the monitor, with the board. So and I think every three months we all together in person.

Does Mr. Warshaw show up?

I see Mr. Warshaw two times. One dinner and before one event and in the court a couple months ago.

Okay. So I'm talking over the past several years, how many times have you actually has he actually attended one of these meetings?

Well, I'm in the board for only one year.

Oh, so you've and you've seen him twice in the year?

Yes.

If he's not there, does he have other staff or does he delegate?

Yes, it's one person working with him. We have a meeting with this lady every month.

Okay. So someone's there. Someone is there. Fair enough. In your experience, has the community advisory board influenced policy or practice changes within the MCSO? I mean, are they are they listening to you, the board, the community, as it relates to changes in policy? Is it I mean, are you effective? Do you feel like we actually have the ability to make things better because they, the sheriff's office, the monitor, they're listening to the people?

Well, I don't see the difference in reality because three in the board attacking me all the time because I organize this event to the sheriff. This specific week, I receive two attacks from one of the members attacking me by email, why I'm here, why if you don't represent the whole board. It's the reason because I say, yeah, this is my voice. So another member of the board, the husband is activist outside and is attacking me frequently. So yesterday in the newspaper, I read the newspaper, is attacking me, I'm say I'm a racist person and a lot of this stuff. And it's public right now. If you read Prensa Arizona, read that this person attack me, say I'm the Charlie Kirk person. So it's the reason because I support the sheriff. And it's really bad because I meet with the sheriff with the Latino community. Every single Latino outside interested in meet with the sheriff.

You may have touched upon this, but I want to get a yes or no from you. Do you believe that with the cooperation of the advisory board and the sheriff's office that the judicial monitor is still necessary? Do you believe that he's still necessary today?

It's not necessary.

Okay. Very good. So this is not something that could it could be better managed at the local level with community input. You know, you got your board, you got a sheriff's office, you got everybody coming together, everybody seems to be working well together. We could just say we don't need any more judicial overreach because it's just costing money and it's unnecessary. Yeah.

Yeah.

I appreciate that. Mr. Riches, Goldwater Institute's amicus brief argues that federalism requires that the county sheriff's office be overseen by the people of the county, not the federal government. In your view, has the more than a decade long federal monitoring of the sheriff's office violated this principle of local self-governance?

Mr. Chairman and Congressman, yes, as indicated in my opening statement, obviously the initial order is a different question than the continued oversight long after facts and circumstances have changed. And I think in this particular situation, when there is no end to federal oversight, it raises principles of federalism.

I think Chairman Galvin brought it up that he keeps Warshaw keeps moving or shifting the goalposts, I believe he stated. And how does that shifting compliance, the benchmarks, or the indefinite monitoring of the sheriff's office ability to implement policy based on local priorities? How do they do that when you have this type of overreach?

Well, you know, it's hard to say and I'm not a particular expert on that issue specifically, but I would say that if there's going to be direction from federal oversight to any state or local agency, it should be clear and consistent, and there shouldn't be circumstances where it's consistently changing.

And these invoices that they keep receiving, these do you believe the taxpayers you believe the taxpayers should have access to detailed information showing how monitor-related funds are spent, even when those funds are subject to federal court oversight?

Not only should they, but as a matter of state law, they have a legal right to that information. Arizona's law is abundantly clear on this. Anytime the government engages in public business or spends taxpayer funds, taxpayers have a right to see what they're doing with that money. So as a result of the federal court orders in this place, that has hamstrung taxpayers from receiving information they would otherwise have a legal right to receive.

Thank you, sir. And Ms. Lesko, in your capacity as the Vice Chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, you interact with the sheriff's office. Chairman Galvin of the Board of Supervisors has described the judicial monitor's oversight as, quote, decimating the agency with a 26 percent vacancy rate. I don't know how in the hell he can go out there and perform his job and keep his people safe in this county when you got a 26 percent vacancy rate. Do you share this view of the situation, 26 percent?

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Nehls, I do. It makes it very difficult on the sheriff's department to do their jobs of protecting citizens. And Mr. Chair and Mr. Nehls, I'd like to add a few things just if you don't mind. Not only did the sheriff's department achieve 100 percent compliance with required policy changes, but the most recent quarterly reports acknowledge that Latino drivers are not being cited, searched, or detained for longer periods of time at rates different than other drivers in Maricopa County. And for two years, annual traffic study analysis found no disparity between white and Hispanic drivers. In fact, the thing that they keep bringing up as why they can't be in compliance is these backlogs of complaints against the sheriff's department or the detention officers. But the backlogs have nothing to do with the original court case. I mean, they could be a complaint about a detention officer in a jail. It has nothing to do with racial profiling of Hispanic or Latino drivers. And so it's very frustrating and it's a they have to have been doing this for years. We've had Republican sheriffs, Democrat sheriffs. In fact, one of the Democratic sheriffs, Sheriff Penzone, he resigned over this. He said that was the reason he resigned. He can't do his job with this federal monitorship. It's just become so burdensome and costly.

And that's unfortunate. And I have more questions for you, but I'm going to yield back to the Chairman. I guess we'll have a second round, so I'll get back to you in a few minutes. But thank you.

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, for his questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It's a wonderful state. Debbie, it's good to see you again. It's been too long. I think you said it best: 14 years, three or four sheriffs, and millions and millions of dollars, and you're still under this federal oversight regime. So I think the question for all of us and really maybe even the public is why? I mean, to me, if I'm looking at this objectively, you're either not in compliance with a court order from 14 years ago, or we are in an era where you really it's duplicative and unnecessary. Would you agree with that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fry. Yes, I agree with it. I mean, this is what's been so frustrating, and this is why the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hired an attorney that deals with federal issues like this to file a Rule 60 motion because it's been going on and on and on. And the goalposts keep moving. I have other examples in front of me if you care to hear them about how things have changed. And so you know, they accomplish one thing and then the court and the monitor say, oh, here's another thing, here's another thing, here's another thing. It seems like it never ends.

It's a game of whack-a-mole. And I think you mentioned Rule 60(b). So I think that's important. Mr. Riches, what is Rule 60(b) for the for the public, for people who are paying attention, who are here in the room or back home? What is Rule 60(b)?

Mr. Chair, Congressman, it's a rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that allows a party to get relief from an existing order or judgment. So it's basically just asking the court to reconsider the court's orders.

Yeah. Hey, judge, this is not this is not we're either in compliance with it, we've done our task, we don't need to be under this prior court order. That's the thrust of it, right? It allows an affected party to seek relief from the court, maybe on an outdated judgment or court order. Is that correct?

Yeah, exactly.

And so one of the things that I would imagine that a court reviews is the factual basis for the motion, right? What facts today are different than they were maybe in this case 14 years ago? Is that one one way in which the courts evaluate the merits of a Rule 60(b) relief motion?

Yes, certainly.

Okay. And you mentioned federalism. Federalism also is triggered under Rule 60(b), at least as far as federal oversight over state and local issues. Is that also correct?

Well, the party can raise, you know, the constitutional arguments, legal arguments, and factual developments that have occurred that would warrant relief from the judgment. So to the extent this raises federalism concerns, and we certainly think it does, a party can certainly raise that in a Rule 60 motion.

And why are courts deferential to federalism concerns as it pertains to maybe federal oversight over a state or local issue? Why is that important?

Well, our whole constitutional system is predicated on the people retaining power for themselves and the states being the primary repository of the police power. The federal government is a system of limited powers. It only has that power which is expressly delegated to it under the Constitution. And so when you have a situation that involves law enforcement, local spending, which ultimately inevitably involves taxation as well, those are the sort of matters that our Constitution entrusts at a different level of government than the one that's currently being exercised.

So do you think I mean, and I would say in looking at court opinions, courts have been hesitant to have this endless federal intervention, if you will, in state and local issues beyond the term of what is reasonably necessary. Is that fair to characterize?

I think that is fair to characterize. I think in any situation like this, oversight should be temporary, it should be reviewable, and it should be transparent.

Perfect. And also let's go back, Ms. Lesko, let's go back to you for a moment. When you look at the original court order in 2014, there were, I don't know, 194, I think, paragraphs of things that the judge wanted paid attention to and addressed. Of the 194 paragraphs, how many have the county fully complied with today? Do you know?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fry. I don't know the exact amount, but I know it's very significant.

174. Does that sound about right?

It sounds right to me, but I'd have to check for, you know, for details from actually the sheriff's department themselves.

The thing is, is you're exactly right. This is going on too long, and the number of paragraphs that it started with has grown exponentially. And so they keep adding on these requirements to the sheriff's department. And the reason that we filed the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors filed the Rule 60 motion is because the original purpose of the Melendres lawsuit has been achieved.

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is doing a good job, and even in many instances, the monitor agrees. The monitor agrees. They are doing the job that the original purpose of the lawsuit, it's been fulfilled. It's now time to move on and end this. It's been too long.

Right. So Ms. Lesko, I think one of the original things that the court took exception with and the monitor as well is that there was an illegal immigration hotline. Is there an illegal immigration hotline today?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fry. My understanding is there is not.

Correct. Correct. There was no triple I unit, there's no targeting, that's been attested to, of Latino drivers and passengers. There's no detention of Latinos pursuant to attempted enforcement of the AHSA and the AESA. Compliance, I thought this was interesting when I was preparing for this hearing. The first maybe some of the first reports, would it surprise you to show that the sheriff's office was not in compliance in the early years? Right? That sounds normal. They're kind of getting their feet under them. 30 percent, 40 percent compliance in early years, 2015 reflected 40 percent, 40.3 percent compliance with phase one and phase two. That was in 2015. This was right after the order, right? So at the time, there was at least efforts being made, 50, 40 percent compliance. But today, it's 100 percent, right? And it's been sustained close to 100 percent for quite some time. Is that your understanding?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fry. My understanding is that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is in compliance with many of the paragraphs, and there's lots of different paragraphs in this court order. And so and you have in order to be in compliance, you believe you have to do it for three years in a row. You know, it's difficult to do, and especially when the goalposts keep moving. Correct. You know, you get in compliance and then the goalpost moves. Or in the cases of several of these things, the one that I brought up in my opening statement, they were in compliance in 2016 and now all of a sudden they're out of compliance, even though nothing has changed. And I have other examples of that as well. So it's very frustrating.

It is. And I think over the course, it is frustrating for the people too because you're under federal oversight on things that in which you are compliant on. And I think it goes back to the original point of what 60(b) is. It's a relief motion for an aggrieved party, in this case the county, the sheriff's office. It is a relief valve for further duplicative and unnecessary oversight. In your legal opinion, Mr. Riches, do you think that the county has complied with the original order of the court enough to warrant a 60(b) relief motion?

So I'm not fully familiar with the entire arc of the litigation, but I would say that a circumstance like this is precisely the reason that Rule 60 exists. When it's very clear that facts have changed, that circumstances have changed, and that continuing federal oversight raises constitutional and democratic accountability problems, this is precisely the sort of circumstance in which that rule allows a party to go and seek relief.

Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I'm going to have a second round of questions later, but I will yield to you, sir.

Gentleman yields back. I now recognize myself for some questioning and comments. So Mr. Garcia, one of the things that you mentioned today is that other individuals on the community assessment board or whatever we call that that oversight board have been attacking you because you were willing to come testify today. Is that accurate?

Yes. I received the invitation last week to come here, but I don't receive any details. So basically one of the members emailed me to the whole group, we five in the group and in the monitoring office, and two members start, you know, start to attack me, why you going and a lot of, you know, really bad stuff, you know, not only by email but the newspaper too.

Well, we appreciate you being here and the point that I see that I'm hearing from you is that the community and the sheriff's office now are sympatico.

Yeah, definitely. 100 percent.

And if if the regime continues, it's not going to get any better because it's pretty good, if it's my understanding.

Yes, good money for a couple people, you know, not for the community, you know.

Right. Right. I mean, for the community, that's what I'm talking. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that. And then Mr. Riches, when we talk about I won't dwell too much on the 60(b) aspect, but I will just get to the point of of what courts look at with 60(b). And you've highlighted it. They're looking at the facts and the law, right? So in this instance, the law early on the judge made a determination what he felt the constitutional interpretation and application of that law was to the facts that were brought before him. But in your participation in this, the lawsuit ultimately, we now see that there seems to be even on the part of the monitor's admission, although he does like to move things around a little bit, he is at least what I've read from him indicates that there is not just substantial compliance, there's almost complete and full compliance. And that would be something that normally a court would take into account is the changed factual circumstances when they apply the same law to those facts, right?

Mr. Chairman, yes. Yes, exactly. And you have a circumstance now where a party has saying the facts have changed, the monitor has essentially conceded near total compliance, and the federal government has also weighed in and said that it's time for the oversight to end. So I think that confluence of factors is certainly an appropriate way to support a Rule 60(b) motion.

Well, for this is a question for any of you, since the original court order, has there been any modification in the actual court's order over the last 12 12 years? Do any of you know that? And yeah, I'm not referring to the monitors moving all over the place. I'm talking actually in the language of the original order. Any modification?

Mr. Chairman, all I know is there's lots of modification. I don't know if that's a court I mean, the monitor works under the federal judge in the court. And so they have changed the goalpost repeatedly. Yes. I'll find out if I can get your exact answer.

Okay. That sounds good. Because in my looking through this, I don't know that I recall seeing an actual modification. Oh, here we go. The answer is yes, they've modified it three times. Okay. Very good. Thank you. But where the crux of the issue becomes isn't it's the monitor's the rather carte blanche way the monitor has in acting and has moved things around. So that's that was one of my questions on that. And I will just say, Ms. Lesko, you talked about the incentives. And so I'm going to just talk for just a second about incentives and tradeoffs. When you look at incentives and tradeoffs, everybody responds to incentives or disincentives. And everybody's making a tradeoff on virtually everything that they decide. When you have a monitor that is making a lot of money and is making money from multiple jurisdictions, which by the way is contrary to something I'm going to talk about in a second, but their incentive is not to actually... ...encourage compliance completely and then walk away and let people be free to continue in their actions. Their incentive instead is to maintain control and the economic benefit that they're getting. That's what I see happening here with Mr. Warshaw. And so the tradeoff that he's making is some people would say it's a moral tradeoff and I'll leave that aside. But the other people would say he's just flat out making a tradeoff between finding compliance in Maricopa County and walking away to some other gig and staying here to the gig that he already has where he's going to be continued to make money. That is the tradeoff that he's effectively making. And the impact is those people in this county who otherwise they need good service from the police and the sheriffs and that is hindered, right? But the other thing is people who have absolutely no say in this at all whatsoever anymore have lost any ability. Their tradeoff is to stay in Maricopa County where you have a monitor that's imposing his will on the Sheriff's Department causing mass morale problems, lack of retention, and also taxes that we don't even see any accountability for or leave the county. That's effectively what this monitor is doing. That's the tradeoff. And that's why it was so important for me I wanted to hear Mr. Garcia's assessment of whether trust has been rebuilt in the community. Do you see a synergy and a cooperation, maybe even a collaboration with the Sheriff's Department and the Latino community which was where the issue arose? So that's why I say if we start looking at that, the trust, we look at the law, and then we look at the tradeoffs and incentives, it all points to one thing: that the monitor's oversight end. And so I'm just going to before I recognize Mr. Nehls for a second round of questioning, I just had to make one more statement because as I was listening to you today and by the way, I've kind of set aside my questions because these guys are asking all my questions, but that's okay. But the one thing I get here is that this is a type of federal overreach. When I say type, I'm talking about an example or a it's not like not kind, I mean this is a type, this is something that you can look and say this happens in multiple other areas. And what that is, that's where the federal government comes into a state or local government ostensibly with a good intention and they never leave. They never leave, which is why federalism and the 10th Amendment have taken a bad beating in the last 125 years in my opinion. So I look at this and I say it is time, it is time for the Rule 60(b) motion to be granted and it quite frankly is time for this monitor to go on and end. I'm going to end there before I go into Merrick Garland's interpretation of what a monitor should do. But right now I'm going to yield and recognize the gentleman from Texas.

But if you look at ICE and border enforcement, it's we have a very, very divided country. I think law enforcement is struggling today because quite honestly I don't know if I'd want one of my daughters or a son to even join the ranks anymore. It's just the ridicule, the number of officers that have lost their lives since I've been in office. I've got a picture of them in my wall outside my office. I mean that thing has got to be 30 yards long and 10 feet high. I mean we're losing hundreds and hundreds of law enforcement over the years because I think it's so dangerous today because of the partisanship. And where did it all begin? You've got to go back and say why are we at where we're at? You could go back to George Floyd. I think that had something to do with it, but I think you could even go back a little further and go back to Trayvon Martin. And it just seems like we have leaders that want to create the division, they want to create the chaos thinking that their side, their politics is going to win over. I mean I don't know, I'm a Second Amendment guy and I know Andy you are too and this and that, but I believe the guy has a right to carry a gun at a demonstration or whatever. But you're going too far when you get into a physical altercation with law enforcement. What the hell are you doing? Carry a gun at the demonstration, but if you start getting into physical altercations with law enforcement, I'm questioning your well you ain't going to be able to talk about it obviously. I just think that we have to do everything we possibly can to get back to you know, remember the old picture where you see the law enforcement officer and he holds out his hand to a young child? That's the way it we need to get back to that because when we have that distrust, it just creates chaos. And when you have distrust in law enforcement today, you can see where we're at. It's quite clear. It's every other day in every other city you're seeing what's taking place. And I think we're better than that. You mentioned the 26 percent vacancy rate. I can't imagine having that I don't know how many of those are in patrol, I don't know what the you know, or detective, CID, I don't know how many they have, but I can't imagine that's got to be affecting clearance rates, response times. As the sheriff said, hey, by the way, I need more people. I mean my response times on a 911 priority one call is now two and a half minutes versus a minute and a half because who wants to work here? And quite honestly you can't blame if Deputy Joe Snuffy would say I may want to go to the county next to me that I don't have all of this oversight. I don't have to worry about if I say something or if it's even perceived as something silly that all of a sudden now I'm going to have an internal affairs division you know what I mean. So how has that affected morale, response times, if you know any of that, clearance rates on crime?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In my conversations with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, it has affected it a lot because every aspect, every employee, whether they are even assigned to traffic stops or not, they have to be trained in this. There's this whole federal bureaucracy and monitorship and they're spending I mean the county estimates this is between the cost of trying to achieve what the monitor wants us to do and the monitor as Mr. Chair said, it's the county believes it's $350 million so far. That's a lot of money that could be used in hiring more sheriff's officers. You know, and even like somebody that's in administration that's not out on the street, they have to be trained in this. Every officer, I can't remember how many things at every traffic stop they have to ask, report. It's just so burdensome that you are correct. Why if they could go to another agency, a city or Department of DPS, Department of Public Safety, which is the state patrol here, why wouldn't they do it if it's so burdensome? So we have to help the Sheriff's Office because I totally believe that the government's number one responsibility is protecting the public. And it's hard to do that when the Sheriff's Office has their hands tied behind their back, you know.

Did we have cameras back then? Back in all this started there were body cameras required by

I think that's a new system, you know, we have the cameras, yeah.

I think the cameras would capture I mean even even when you make a traffic stop, you have to put on there why you stopped them and what you know, are they Hispanic, black, white? I mean you had to list all that.

Something important with the Sheriff's Office, 35 percent of the people is Latino.

Okay, so you're going to make quite a few traffic stops on Latino if it's a majority you know, a lot yeah. The so I just got to go back to this and I don't know why it's just on but it seem was was the sheriff back then, Sheriff Arpaio, was he using his office maybe it was maybe it wasn't, I don't know, help me out. Was he tried to use his office to enforce federal immigration law?

Yes.

Okay. And I tell you I had the same issue. I mean I'm four hours north of the border in Houston, Texas. A lot of people would call me up and say look at them, they're over there, go get them, they're over at Larry's Mexican. In the state of Texas, I had as the sheriff, right or wrong, I had no authority to put somebody in jail that came across the border illegally. I had no authority to do it. It was like it's the federal government's job to do that. And I understood that. Now as the county sheriff, what I had the ability to do is if somebody was doing something wrong and he was not documented and I put him in the county jail, well then obviously every person that I ever arrested, we ever arrested, I don't care what color you what your name, everybody's name would be entered we'd send it to the ICE in Houston. And within two hours, within two hours, they would send me back a report that says I want to put a detainer on this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy. So I wasn't enforcing immigration laws, federal immigration, I was forcing Texas law by if the individual committed a state violation law. But a sheriff in the state of Texas doesn't have the authority, there's nothing in the penal code in the state of Texas that says I can arrest somebody for being here illegally. Even though they're illegal, it was nothing to do with it because it just seemed the federal government's job. Now maybe the sheriff I'm sure he understood all this, but it just appears to me you're right, this overreach has to stop. It's been a decade. But just for my understanding, maybe back then a little oversight was warranted and now you've got you're building the community outreach and you've got new sheriffs coming in and and you just have to continue to build. But I think this monitor, this gentleman, I think he's just feathering his nest. He I mean guy's not dumb. I mean you got to give it to him. I just hope the judge is watching this, Mr. Chairman, that he understands that you know, we don't need this here anymore. And you can't you can't tie the hands of this county sheriff by all this overreach when we have shown the numbers, the data, that says we are in compliance. And you having the budget authority over this county sheriff, you've got to have the ability to number one, be a good steward of the funds, right? Be a good steward to the taxpayers and and help this sheriff and end this this overreach, this bureaucracy. And I wish you all the best in that and hopefully we can continue be vocal. I think this hearing, great job with this, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully this hearing will will help this great state and this great county here in Arizona. I yield.

Gentleman yields. I now recognize myself for some questions. So Merrick Garland, former Attorney General under President Biden, in September of 2021 issued a memo regarding monitorships of state and local government entities. I don't know if did have any of you seen that before? Okay, so this is good. This is you guys are a tabula rasa. I'm going to just tell you what he says and then ask if you think that this has been done in this particular case. One thing he said is you should cap the fees that a monitor receives. Has that been the case, Mr. Garcia, or are the monitor's fees capped in this case?

What is the question again?

Is the monitor's fees capped by the court in this particular in this in the Melendres case?

Yes. Yes, because we for example, I request you know, to review the expense and and I don't have access 100 percent you know, for every detail.

Yeah. But is it capped? So they say you can't spend more than what $5 million a year to maintain? Oh no. So there is no cap, they're just reporting to you, is that what you're saying? Do you know if it's been capped, Mr. Riches?

Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

Supervisor?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not know for sure if it's capped, but how would we know? We we're not even allowed there's no it's my understanding there's no there's no court order that caps it, it's my understanding. If it if I'm wrong, I'll get back to you on it. But but we don't even know what he's spending it on.

Yeah, see I in looking through I didn't see a cap, but I could be wrong. But but it also says Mr. Merrick Garland says the second thing is monitoring's a public service. Shouldn't shouldn't be feathering your nest. He says they should be structured to use to encourage use of pro bono time or reduced rates. Have you now you've seen some of their expenses, does it look like they're reducing their rates or giving some stuff for free?

No.

Mr. Riches, have you seen any of this stuff?

Mr. Chairman, if they're providing pro bono time, it would have to be a an awful lot because the the expense invoices we've seen show considerable expenditures, $30 million over over the course of the order, so I would think that's unlikely.

Ms. Lesko?

No, there's no as Mr. Riches said, it's been over $30 million, it's millions of dollars a year we're spending just on this monitor. And at one of the court hearings, they made a point of flying in all of these people that work for the monitors and you know, giving their bios of you know, how anyway, it's a lot of expense. Thank you.

And nobody nobody said I'm here and I'm going to work at least half the time or at least 2 percent of the time pro bono? They didn't say that?

No, they did not.

They it makes me wonder if they're lawyers, actually. That's that's the way law sorry. And he also says the lead monitor participation should be restricted from participating in multiple monitorships. In other words, it's one and done. So the lead monitor should serve on no more than one monitoring team at a time. Is this monitor working on multiple ones, Mr. Garcia?

I see only one person, you know, I'm working very close with one person.

But Mr. Warshaw himself, you've not you've seen him twice, right?

Yes, twice. Yeah.

And Mr. Riches, is Mr. Warshaw involved in more than one monitorship?

Yes, it's my understanding he's a monitor in in other jurisdictions as well.

At the same time?

At the same time.

Ms. Lesko?

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding he does this in more than one location, more than in Arizona. And in fact, he's been doing it for 25 years in California on one case.

Yeah. So here we go. This is another one I think is interesting. Term limits for monitors should be included in a decree. I don't I'll go back this way before we get we're going to start this time with you, Ms. Lesko, is there to your knowledge is there a term limit on Mr. Warshaw's service as monitor in the Melendres case?

Mr. Chair, I am not aware of any term limit for him.

Mr. Riches?

Nor am I, Mr. Chairman, and I think this gets to one of the important points that not only should the federal oversight be temporary, but any one specific monitor should likely also be temporary so there's not a circumstance where a monitor might be incentivized to continue the oversight.

Mr. Garcia, do you do you know if there's a term limit on Mr. Warshaw?

No, no term.

Okay. We'll go Ms. Lesko again. The next one is monitors' work should be publicly accessible. What do you think? Is that happening?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, as we've testified, we we the county can't even see what he's spending his money on. It goes to the court and only the court. And I've been at one of the public community meetings and asked, the public asked, actually some of the people that are here today asked, like what are you spending this money on? And they didn't answer. We've asked, they don't answer. It only goes to the court. So the public does not know.

Public Mr. Riches, have you seen anything different than that?

No, Mr. Chairman, and that's that's one of our very primary concerns in this case. Under state law, it is abundantly clear taxpayers have a right to this information. The federal FOIA would allow access to this information, the judiciary isn't subject to the FOIA. It is a central component of democratic government that citizens must know what their government is up to. And in this case, Maricopa County taxpayers simply have no idea because the monitor hasn't disclosed it and the orders in this case have prevented its disclosure.

Mr. Garcia, have you seen is are documents easily publicly available of this monitorship of Mr. Warshaw?

No.

Okay, keep keep going. All right. So the monitors should and I've skipped some of it because we could just go on all day about about this stuff, but let's get to this one. Community engagement begins with the selection of the monitoring team. Do any of you know if the community community was consulted on the appointment of Mr. Warshaw?

I do not know.

Yeah. I just but going on from there, the priority according to Merrick Garland was that that a monitor should put a premium on stakeholder involvement. Mr. Garcia, you sit on the community oversight. Do you feel like this monitor Mr. Warshaw has put a premium on community input?

No.

Let's get to these here. This because this one I think is actually very interesting. You should require a hearing to assess termination after no more than five years. These these should not last longer than five years because according to Mr. Merrick Garland, you want to incentivize both the the parties that are being monitored and the monitor to get this thing done, make the changes and corrections and move on. Well I don't know, Ms. Lesko, are you aware of any termination hearing after five years?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, in fact it's been going on for a lot longer than that and there's no end in sight.

Mr. Riches?

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of that. Again, this gets to the temporary and reviewable components of this. This oversight should be temporary and the decisions should be reviewable both of the monitor and of the court.

Mr. Garcia, are you aware of any additional hearing that had taken place from the time of the original order to determine to assess termination of the of the monitorship?

No, you know, I think you know, it's time to finish this, you know. It's too much money, you know, it's too much time, you know, and when you put the money in the right place, you know.

Well so thank you. And in the alternative, he says you could use a partial termination. So you could come in and say well they've complied here but we aren't finding compliance else here. What Ms. Lesko, do you know if there was a hearing which proposed even a partial termination of some of the monitor's review targets?

I am not aware.

Mr. Riches?

No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware. I know in the Rule 60 motion there was a request that some of the oversight components be stopped.

Mr. Garcia, you aware of any?

No.

Okay. Well I am going to thank you for answering questions. I think it's painfully obvious that Merrick Garland's suggestions and guidance on monitorships of consent decrees and in this case a judgment, a judicial judgment, have gone largely unheeded. And that's a problem. For the record, I'm going to put in some UCs here. This is an amendment number two to lease agreement between Lures Investors and Maricopa County. This is on behalf of Mr. Warshaw that amendment to that contract without objection. This one is this is one out of paying for Warshaw and Associates. This is for professional services, $212,551 payment net 15 by the way, on August 1, 2023, without objection. This is a letter from the PORAC on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California encouraging that the monitorship come to a close, without objection. This is a letter from the National Association of Police Organizations encouraging that the monitorship come to an end, without objection. This is a piece titled DOJ Supports Call to End Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Oversight Case, without objection. Supervisors Call for End of $353 Million Oversight of Sheriff's Office, without objection. This is County Attorney Says Monitor Has Financial Incentive to Continue MCSO Oversight, without objection. It goes back to my thing about incentives. This one says A Monitor Keeps Moving Goalposts for MCSO Officers Putting Our Safety at Risk, without objection. And this one A Citizens' Plea for Relief, Balance, and Local Accountability in Maricopa County, without objection. And this is a letter to the Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, written by me, admitted without objection. And with that, I am prepared to yield and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for his second round of questioning.

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. And I think if just had to step out for a minute, but I think you covered did you cover the Merrick Garland? I did. Okay, pretty thoroughly. That was going to be my second round. That was thorough. I think and I'll just I'll yield back here in a minute, but I think in every which way when I look at the merits of this case and what the county's filed with their 60(b) relief supported by any number of groups including the DOJ, the elements are satisfied. Meaning that the county and the Sheriff's Office have complied substantially for quite some time with what was intended in the court order in 2014. They have complied not just on the surface, but deep structural changes within the department. They have been validated by the monitor's own reporting, they've been validated by other reports that exist out there that are independent of the monitor and the county. When I look at the federalism concerns, those speak to themselves. The federal government is not here to micromanage every aspect of state and local government, that is not their function. The Constitution limits the authority given to the federal government. And the 10th Amendment is very clear: those that are not enumerated in this Constitution are left to the states. And so while federal oversight is maybe warranted, judge orders that, these are routine sometimes in our in our country. In this, you have a 14-year-old well over 10-year-old case where you've had substantial compliance by the county for a long time. They've spent over $300 million in compliance costs. Shouldn't that money be better left appropriated by the people who are elected by the citizens of this area to be spent on I don't know, further policing, more police, other other initiatives within the county? Doesn't that make more sense than this continuing check the box? Look, if if you go back to 2015 in some of the data that I highlighted, 50 percent compliance at that point. Okay, that's a substantial start. But we're not quite there yet. The county's not quite there yet. But now you have 100 percent high 90s in every category that seems to be reviewing this. And so why must the county continue to endure this both from an operational standpoint on what they're doing, also a federalism component which I think is critical to what who we are in our republic? I think the chairman raised up some comments on maybe some oversight of monitors that has not been the case. And Merrick Garland who I didn't agree with much, I didn't think he was that effective at all as an Attorney General, he may have gotten this right, right? Where there's some disclosure that's required by the monitor, there's some public input that's required on the selection of the monitor, there are term limits to the monitor. This is not an unfettered cash grab of continuing to say oh yep, they're doing their work, here's a bill for $250,000 or whatever the case is. The monitor is not a taxpayer of this county, the monitor is not a voter of this county. The monitor has done his job and it's time to end. I hope that the 60(b) motion is successful. I think it is is beyond and past time to end because again, the federal government doesn't need to micromanage every aspect of this. The Sheriff's Office should be commended for their hard work. I know it probably wasn't easy to have this oversight constantly on you. But in many cases and things that I've read, it sounds like they've done a dang good job at it. So it's time for this to end. And I hope that it does. Appreciate you being here and your involvement in the community. I think that's huge. That nexus between the community and police is is massive. It's it's underrated at times.

...times, but it works very successfully. And so you being a part of that, part of that discussion, is critically important. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes Mr. Nehls for two minutes.

Thank you, sir. I agree with what you just stated, Mr. Fry. I think Mr. Garcia, I think you, you are a key here in my humble opinion in its success. The, the Sheriff's Office, and it's an office, you know, I always say department, it's an office. He's a duly elected, so he's, it's Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff's Office is complying with the judicial orders. It's been doing that for years. The documentation, the data is there. And you stated, I'm paraphrasing, the citizens are satisfied. You, great, right? Everybody seems to be pretty pleased. And, and I believe your working group, and if it's just coming from elected officials, I don't think that's going to work. If it's coming from the working group, if it's coming from the people that reside in this county that are pleased now to see the significant improvement, change at the Sheriff's Office, I think that should hold significant, significant weight in the elimination of this federal program. And I just think having you more involved with this, letters to the judge, everything else, I think that's the key to your success and I wish you all the best of luck. So thank you, sir. I yield back.

Gentleman yields. That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. And I, I must point out that we invited our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle to appear and to invite witnesses today and they opted to not participate in this subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, hearing's adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]