Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Metro Sheriff’s Office surprise Millions of dollars were budgeted for compliance costs in Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling case over his immigration crackdown that had little or nothing to do with the agency’s court-ordered overhaul, according to an expert report.
Use of compliance funds criticized in report released Wednesday Maricopa County The Sheriff’s Office will partially or fully fund personnel costs and tasks not associated with the overhaul.
It also pointed to inappropriate spending: $2.8 million for surplus body-worn camera licenses that went beyond court orders; $1.5 million for renovations in the relocation of the Office of Internal Affairs; More than $1.3 million to purchase 42 vehicles; and an $11,000 golf cart to shuttle employees from headquarters to Internal Affairs operations, even though the department was leasing parking space at the latter location.
For more than a decade, Maricopa County taxpayers have footed the bill to address constitutional violations found in a 2013 profiling decision over then-Sheriff Arpaio’s traffic patrols targeting immigrants.
The racial profiling case focused on 20 mass traffic patrols initiated by Arpaio that targeted immigrants from January 2008 to October 2011. This led to the profiling decision and costly court-ordered changes to the agency’s traffic patrol operations and, later, its internal affairs unit.
The county says $323 million has been spent so far on legal expenses, a staff that monitors the sheriff’s department’s progress and the agency’s compliance costs. The county said the total is expected to reach $352 million by July 2026.
The federal judge presiding over the case expressed concerns about transparency in spending by the Sheriff’s Office and ordered a review, which led to a blistering report from budget analysts. The report was prepared by budget analysts selected by the case monitors.
The report concluded that 72% of the $226 million spent by the Sheriff’s Office from February 2014 to the end of September 2024 was either incorrectly attributed or “improperly proportionate” to compliance funding.
Budget analysts reviewed hundreds of employee records over approximately that time period, finding that an average of 70% of all positions funded by compliance money were “improperly assigned or only partially related to compliance.”
Budget analysts wrote that those expenditures were unrelated or unnecessary to compliance, lacked proper justification or resulted from intentional misrepresentations by the sheriff’s office, county leaders or both.
Sheriff Jerry Sheridan’s office issued a statement saying its attorneys are reviewing the report to identify areas of general concern and may dispute any findings. Sheridan, who took office this year, is the fourth sheriff to grapple with the case.
Raul Pina, a longtime member of a community advisory board created to help improve trust in the Sheriff’s Office, said the report opens a broader conversation about the integrity of the Sheriff’s Office.
“Now whenever the agency talks about data, you have to double-check,” Pina said.
Earlier this year, county officials stepped up criticism of the spending. He said the agency should not remain under court supervision even a dozen years after the decision and that those who have been monitoring the agency on behalf of a judge since around 2014 should not have to pay such huge bills, including nearly $30 million.
The report criticized Maricopa County and its governing board for a lack of oversight over spending.
Thomas Galvin, chairman of the county’s governing board and a leading critic of continued court supervision, said the board’s legal counsel were reviewing the report. “The board has confidence in MCSO’s budgeting team and will respond accordingly,” Galvin said.
Since the profiling decision, the Sheriff’s Office has been criticized for unequal treatment. hispanic and black drivers in a series of studies of its traffic stops. However, the latest study shows significant improvements. The agency is also grappling with pending internal affairs cases. Although the agency has made progress on some fronts and achieved favorable compliance grades in some areas, it is not yet considered fully compliant with the court-ordered overhaul.