Report Reveals: Sheriff's Office Misused Millions of Dollars Set to Address Racial Profiling

 Report Reveals: Sheriff's Office Misused Millions of Dollars Set to Address Racial Profiling

The Metro Phoenix Sheriff's Office spent millions of dollars budgeted for compliance costs in a racial profiling case, which was carried out under an immigration action by Arpaio, on matters that had little or nothing to do with the agency's court order.

Image abc4

According to an expert report, the Metro Phoenix Sheriff's Office spent millions of dollars budgeted for compliance costs in a racial profiling case, which was carried out under an immigration action by Arpaio, on matters that had little or nothing to do with the agency's court order.

The report, released Wednesday, criticizes the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for using compliance funds, which were spent, in part or in full, on personnel costs and tasks unrelated to the overhaul.

It also points to improper spending: $2.8 million was spent for additional body-worn camera licenses that went beyond court orders; The relocation of an internal affairs office included $1.5 million for renovations; over $1.3 million to purchase 42 vehicles; and an $11,000 golf cart to transport employees to and from headquarters for internal affairs operations, while the department was leasing parking space at the latter location.

For more than a decade, Maricopa County taxpayers have been footing the bill to correct constitutional violations found in a 2013 profiling decision by then-Sheriff Arpaio targeting immigrants during traffic patrols.

The racial profiling case centered on 20 large-scale traffic patrols conducted by Arpaio from January 2008 to October 2011 targeting immigrants. 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 it has spent $323 million so far on legal expenses, staff monitoring the Sheriff's Department's progress, and the agency's compliance costs. The county has stated that the total amount is expected to reach $352 million by July 2026.

The federal judge presiding over the case expressed concerns about the Sheriff's Office's transparency in spending and ordered a review, resulting in this scathing report by budget analysts. The report was prepared by budget analysts selected by the case's monitor.

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 to the compliance fund or "improperly proportioned."

Budget analysts, who reviewed hundreds of employee records over approximately the same period, found that an average of 70% of all positions funded by the compliance fund were "improperly allocated or only partially related to compliance."

Budget analysts wrote that these expenditures were unrelated to compliance or unnecessary, lacked reasonable justification, or resulted from deliberate misrepresentation by the Sheriff's Office, county leaders, or both.

Sheriff Jerry Sheridan's office issued a statement saying that his attorneys are reviewing the report to identify areas of common concern and any findings that could be disputed. Sheridan, who took office this year, is the fourth sheriff to grapple with this issue.

Raul Pina, a longtime member of the Community Advisory Board formed to improve trust in the Sheriff's Office, said the report opens the door to a broader discussion about the Sheriff's Office's integrity.

"Now, whenever the agency talks about statistics, you have to double-check," Pina said.

Earlier this year, county officials intensified their criticism of the spending. He said the agency shouldn't remain under court supervision a dozen years after the decision and shouldn't be paying such massive bills, including nearly $30 million in payments to those overseeing the agency by a judge since around 2014.

The report criticized Maricopa County and its governing board for a lack of oversight of spending.

Thomas Galvin, chairman of the county's governing board and a prominent critic of continued court oversight, said the board's legal advisors are reviewing the report. "The board has confidence in the MCSO's budget team and will act accordingly," Galvin said.

Since the profiling decision, the Sheriff's Office has been criticized for discriminatory treatment of Hispanic and Black drivers in several studies of its traffic stops. However, the latest study shows significant improvement. The agency is also struggling with a backlog of internal affairs cases. Although the agency has made progress on some fronts and received favorable compliance grades in some areas, it is not yet considered fully compliant with the court-ordered reforms.