Maricopa Sheriff – A court-appointed monitor says the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has regressed in complying with reforms tied to the Melendres v. Arpaio racial profiling settlement—alleging a “disturbing pattern” of policy and court-order violations. The finding comes as U
For more than a decade, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has lived under court scrutiny tied to a racial profiling case—yet a new inquiry suggests the department is losing ground just as the fight over ending oversight is about to begin.
A monitor appointed by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow in 2014 found what it called a “disturbing pattern” of violations of department policy and court orders. The monitor’s team launched an investigation last year and published its findings this month. arguing those violations have undermined the sheriff’s office’s ability to investigate misconduct and root out racial profiling.
The inquiry follows an analysis by Arizona Luminaria and ProPublica that found ongoing racial disparities in traffic stops by the sheriff’s office, disparities the monitor says continue to hold back compliance with court orders.
At the center of the latest allegations is the Professional Standards Bureau, the unit tasked with investigating reports of misconduct. The monitor’s findings echo accusations from years earlier that contributed to contempt charges against sheriff’s office leaders.
Judge Snow has overseen the settlement and, since 2013, has issued four court orders containing 368 requirements for the department. Warshaw, the monitor, has tracked compliance with Snow’s orders and reports the sheriff’s office’s progress quarterly.
Among the most serious claims in the monitor’s report is an account of pressure coming from within the sheriff’s office leadership—attempts. the monitor says. to reopen closed investigations involving two deputies who had been disciplined and placed on the Brady list. a public database of officer misconduct. The monitor also alleges top leadership tried to interfere with the disciplinary process to protect employees accused of wrongdoing.
When the bureau commander resisted, the report says he was placed on leave, investigated by an outside agency, and temporarily transferred out of the bureau.
In one passage, the monitor wrote that its investigation found an effort to create “an internal culture where favor and reprisal are tools of control: to impact outcomes; to instill fear in changemakers; and to grant favors and position to those who bend to misguided directions.”
The sheriff’s office disputes the account and argues the inquiry is not about compliance—it’s about punishment. In a 78-page response filed with the court, the department denies any violations of court orders or department policy. It describes the investigation as “speculative” and “improper. ” and says the cited incidents show that internal checks strengthened by court orders are working. The sheriff’s office also calls the monitor “penalizing the department” for following those orders and policies.
The department further argues that placing the commander on administrative leave and referring him for investigation by an outside agency was justified and required by court orders. It says that when the current sheriff took office. newly appointed staff asked the bureau commander’s advice about reviewing investigations that had been completed or were under appeal to understand whether outcomes could change—but ultimately chose not to take further action.
The sheriff’s office wrote that because the complaint alleged criminal-nature misconduct—specifically evidence tampering—against the current PSB commander, referring the matter to an outside agency was “the only way to avoid a conflict of interest.”
Sheriff Jerry Sheridan, who took office in January 2025, also pushed back in a separate statement to reporters. He questioned whether the monitor’s investigation had strayed into “areas involving management discretion. personnel administration. and internal policy disagreements that are more appropriately addressed by agency leadership.”.
The monitor’s report ties its latest findings to the settlement’s history. The constitutional violations began in 2007 under then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The case, Melendres v. Arpaio, alleged that the sheriff’s office used traffic stops to arrest people on immigration charges and racially profiled Latinos. In that litigation, the court found that when members of the public reported misconduct, Arpaio and others interfered with investigations. Arpaio was held in criminal contempt in 2016 for continuing to make immigration arrests in violation of court orders; he was later pardoned by President Donald Trump.
Sheridan, the current sheriff, inherited the settlement when he took office. He rose through the department to become Arpaio’s second-in-command in 2010 and was found in civil contempt in 2016 for denying knowledge of a court order to stop making immigration arrests despite evidence presented in court. Sheridan says he was always truthful. During his campaign and after taking office. he distanced himself from his former boss and said he was committed to seeing through reforms.
A major point of contention now is what oversight is for—and what happens if it ends. The sheriff’s office response targets timing. saying the monitor’s investigation was released two weeks before oral arguments over whether to end court oversight. The department’s lawyers are preparing to argue that the law enforcement agency has fulfilled all settlement requirements related to racial profiling and should be released from the settlement.
In its response filed in court, the sheriff’s office said the monitor discussing those issues had “everything to do with providing inflammatory soundbites” to aid the plaintiff’s opposition to Maricopa County’s motion to end oversight.
The monitor’s inquiry centers on the Professional Standards Bureau. where oversight is partly tied to the bureau’s backlog in misconduct investigations. The report says the sheriff’s office has failed to eliminate that backlog—one of the reasons the department has not fully complied with orders to show it can police itself.
Capt. Gregory Lugo led the bureau from February 2021. The monitor says Lugo helped reduce the backlog from over 2,100 misconduct investigations in November 2022 to 371 as of May. But in April 2025, Sheridan placed Lugo on leave, prompting the monitor’s inquiry.
The monitor alleges that alongside Lugo’s leave. the sheriff’s office referred a criminal complaint against him to the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The monitor says the state agency closed the investigation without finding evidence of wrongdoing. A separate investigator hired by the court to review the Department of Public Safety’s investigation. the monitor says. found the allegations against Lugo unfounded and cleared him of wrongdoing.
The monitor also describes the complaint’s origins: it was filed by a sergeant whom Lugo demoted in 2020. Lugo, the monitor says, also filed insubordination charges against that sergeant, charges that were initially sustained but overturned after Sheridan took office after the sergeant appealed.
“The Monitoring Team concluded that the stated reason for Captain Lugo’s transfer was a pretext,” the report says, adding that the transfer was retaliation for not going along with meddling in investigations in violation of court orders.
The monitor’s report includes other disciplinary examples. One involves a deputy dismissed for clocking into a sheriff’s office station while the deputy was working an off-duty job. The deputy appealed, and Sheridan’s second-in-command questioned the deputy’s dismissal and asked Lugo about reviewing that decision. Lugo said the deputy was fired for timesheet violations totaling “thousands of dollars.”.
The monitor also describes alleged command staff pressure about discipline policy. It says Sheridan and another member of the command staff inquired about potentially weakening disciplinary policy to avoid firing a sergeant arrested for DUI. Command staff argued the sergeant should not have been fired because he self-reported the arrest. Lugo warned. the monitor says. that such a change was not likely to be approved by the monitor or by the attorneys involved in the settlement.
The monitor’s bottom line is that compliance has declined. Its inquiry into the Professional Standards Bureau. the report says. led to a regression in compliance with the settlement’s mandated reforms. Compliance rates—measuring progress—decreased in three of four court orders. The largest drops were for an order focused on internal oversight and discipline, where implementation rates dropped from 95% to 70%. Compliance rates for an order directed at ending the backlog in pending investigations dropped from 88% to 68%.
The sheriff’s office disputes that conclusion too. It says it remains in full compliance with requirements related to the monitor’s inquiry and calls the compliance rate changes “punitive, draconian oversight.”
The legal costs are also part of the dispute. The county has said the costs to taxpayers of implementing the reforms have reached $350 million. On June 22, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional $36 million for compliance expenses in the upcoming fiscal year. The court has questioned those costs. and the monitor published an audit last October finding the sheriff’s office misattributed or inflated about 72% of its settlement-related expenses.
For the plaintiffs, the latest report is not just another compliance document—it is a warning sign about trust.
The American Civil Liberties Union. which represents all Latino drivers in Maricopa County as part of the settlement. said the monitor’s inquiry proves the department cannot be trusted to police itself without court oversight. The ACLU called for sheriff’s office leadership to be held accountable for the alleged violations of court orders.
“A public law enforcement agency like the MCSO cannot be allowed to operate with impunity if it is to have any legitimacy with the communities it serves,” the ACLU said in its response to the monitor’s inquiry.
On Friday, Judge Snow is scheduled to hear oral arguments over the motion filed by Maricopa County attorneys. The motion asks for court oversight of the sheriff’s office to end completely and immediately. Attorneys argue that court reforms have moved beyond the original scope of the lawsuit and that the sheriff’s office no longer racially profiles.
But the monitor’s report has landed with a blunt message: while the settlement requires change, the department’s own internal mechanisms—especially the Professional Standards Bureau—may be steering the system back toward the same failures the case was meant to stop.
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Melendres v. Arpaio Jerry Sheridan G. Murray Snow court oversight Professional Standards Bureau racial profiling Brady list Robert Warshaw monitor ACLU Joe Arpaio Lugo backlog