Arizona sheriff’s office misused millions set aside to remedy racial profiling | Arizona
The Phoenix metro sheriff’s office spent millions of dollars over budget on compliance costs in Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling case over immigration crackdowns that had little or nothing to do with a court-ordered overhaul of the agency, an expert’s report finds.
The report released Wednesday criticized the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for personnel costs unrelated to the overhaul and the use of compliance money to partially or fully fund its missions.
It also noted improper spending: $2.8 million for extra body-worn camera licenses that went beyond court orders; a $1.5 million renovation of an internal affairs office relocation; over $1.3 million to purchase 42 vehicles; and an $11,000 golf cart to transport staff from headquarters to the internal affairs operation, even though the department had rented parking at the second location.
For more than a decade, Maricopa County taxpayers have passed bills to correct constitutional violations found in Sheriff Arpaio’s 2013 profiling order on traffic patrols targeting immigrants.
The racial profiling case focused on 20 large-scale traffic patrols by Arpaio targeting immigrants from January 2008 to October 2011. This led to profiling and expensive court-ordered overhauls of 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, staff monitoring the sheriff’s department’s progress and compliance costs for the agency. The total is expected to reach $352 million by July 2026, the county said.
The federal judge presiding over the case expressed concerns about transparency in the sheriff’s spending and ordered a review; This led to harsh reporting by budget analysts. The report was prepared by budget analysts selected by the case’s watchdog.
The report concluded that 72% of the sheriff’s $226 million in spending from February 2014 through the end of September 2024 was either improperly attributed or “improperly allocated” to a compliance fund.
Budget analysts who reviewed hundreds of employee records during approximately this time period found that an average of 70% of all positions funded by compliance money were “improperly assigned or only partially related to compliance.”
These expenditures were unrelated or unnecessary to compliance, lacked proper justification, or resulted from intentional misrepresentations by the sheriff’s office, county leaders or both, budget analysts wrote.
Sheriff Jerry Sheridan’s office released a statement saying his attorneys were reviewing the report to identify areas of common concern and findings he might object to. Sheridan, who took office this year, is the fourth sheriff to handle the case.
Raul Piña, a longtime member of the community advisory board created to help increase trust in the sheriff’s office, said the report sparked a broader discussion about the integrity of the sheriff’s office.
“You will now have to double-check when the agency talks about statistics,” Piña said.
Starting earlier this year, county officials have stepped up their criticism of the spending. They said the agency should not still be under the court’s control a dozen years after the ruling and should still not be paying such hefty bills, including nearly $30 million to those who have overseen the agency on the judge’s behalf since 2014.
The report criticized Maricopa County and its board for a lack of control over spending.
Thomas Galvin, the county’s board chairman and a leading critic of the ongoing court review, said the board’s legal counsel was 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 disparate treatment of Hispanic and Black drivers in a series of studies of traffic stops. However, the latest study shows significant improvements. The agency is also plagued by a backlog of internal affairs cases. While the agency has made progress in some areas and achieved positive compliance ratings in certain areas, it has not yet been deemed fully compliant with the court-ordered revisions.
