phoenix — PHOENIX (AP) — The Phoenix metro mayor’s office has spent millions of budgeted dollars to cover compliance costs in a racial profiling case over Joe Arpaio Immigration crackdowns on things that have little to do with a court-ordered overhaul of the agency, according to an expert report.
The report released Wednesday criticized the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office’s use of compliance funds to fund personnel and task costs, either partially or fully, not related to the overhaul.
She also cited inappropriate spending: $2.8 million for surplus body-worn camera licenses that exceeded court orders; $1.5 million for renovations to relocate the Office of Internal Affairs; More than $1.3 million to purchase 42 vehicles; and an $11,000 golf cart to transport employees from headquarters to the internal affairs operation, although the department was renting parking spaces at the latter location.
For more than a decade, Maricopa County taxpayers have pushed the bill to address constitutional violations found in the Profiling ruling 2013 During the traffic patrols that Sheriff Arpaio was conducting at the time, which targeted immigrants.
The racial profiling case centered on Arpaio’s twenty large-scale traffic patrols targeting immigrants from January 2008 to October 2011. This led to the profiling ruling and the immigrants’ prosecution. Expensive court-ordered repairs 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 who monitor the Sheriff Department’s progress and agency compliance costs. The county said the total is It 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 an audit, leading to the scathing report from budget analysts. The report was prepared by budget analysts selected by the case monitor.
The report concluded that 72% of the $226 million spent by the Sheriff’s Office from February 2014 to late September 2024 was either incorrectly attributed or “improperly apportioned” to the compliance fund.
Budget analysts who reviewed hundreds of employee records over roughly that time period found that an average of 70% of all positions funded with compliance funds “were inappropriately assigned or were only partially compliance-related.”
These expenditures were unrelated to compliance or unnecessary, lacked adequate justification or resulted from intentional misrepresentation by the Sheriff’s Office, county leaders, or both, budget analysts wrote.
Sheriff Jerry Sheridan’s office issued a statement saying his attorneys are reviewing the report to identify areas of common concern and any findings he may dispute. Sheridan, who took office this year, is the city’s fourth mayor to take on the issue.
Raul Peña, a longtime member of the 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.
“You’ll have to check back now when the agency talks about statistics,” Peña said.
Starting earlier this year, county officials intensified their criticism of the spending. They said the agency should not remain under court supervision more than a decade after the ruling, nor should it continue to pay such high bills, including about $30 million to those who have been monitoring the agency on behalf of the judge since about 2014.
The report criticized Maricopa County and its board for a lack of oversight of spending.
Thomas Galvin, chairman of the county board and one of the most prominent critics of the court’s continued oversight, said the board’s legal counsel is reviewing the report. “The Board has confidence in MCSO’s budget preparation team and will respond accordingly,” Galvin said.
Since the profiling ruling, the Sheriff’s Office has been criticized for it Differentiated treatment of Hispanic and black drivers in a series of studies on traffic stops. However, the latest study shows significant improvements. The agency is also being pursued by A accumulation Of internal affairs issues. While the agency has made progress on some fronts and received positive compliance scores in some areas, it is not yet considered fully compliant with court-ordered reforms.