Melendres et al v Sheridan et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated; et al.
Plaintiffs,
and
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
Gerard A. Sheridan, in his official capacity
as Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona; et
al.
Defendants.
No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Chief Melissa Palopoli’s motion for limited intervention
to allow her attorney to attend an interview with the Independent Investigator, Shaneeda
Jaffer, regarding internal affairs investigation IA 2025-0185 (Doc. 3289). For the reasons
stated below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2025, the Court appointed Shaneeda Jaffer (the “Independent
Investigator”) of the Cleveland-based law firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan and
Aronoff to conduct an outside investigation for internal affairs investigation IA 2025-0185.
(Doc. 3191 at 1). A complaint was made to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Professional Standards Bureau (“PSB”), and the complaint was assigned a number by PSB.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3292 Filed 10/27/25 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Id.). After consultation with the Monitor by PSB, and pursuant to the Monitor’s authority
under the Court’s Third Supplemental Injunctive Order (see Doc. 2830 ¶¶ 346-47 (granting
the Monitor the “authority to oversee all of MCSO’s complaint intake and routing”)), IA
2025-0185 was recommended for independent investigation. (Doc. 3191 at 1).
In its order appointing Ms. Jaffer as the Independent Investigator, the Court
provided that the Independent Investigator “shall pursue [IA 2025-0185] independently
and shall have the same access to cooperation and information from all parties, specifically
including the MCSO as have been provided the Monitor in this lawsuit by this Court’s
orders.” (Id. ¶ 2). After recent concern about this language, the Court clarified in a recent
conference with the parties that Ms. Jaffer has the status of a PSB investigator. (Doc. 3251
at 15:22-23 (“My intention is that Ms. Jaffer takes the role of an MCSO PSB officer. . . .”);
id. at 17:13 (“She is acting as a PSB person.”)). The Court granted the Independent
Investigator and her staff “the same immunities which deputy sheriffs assigned to PSB
receive in the discharge of their duties under state and federal law.” (Doc. 3191 ¶ 3). The
Court instructed the Independent Investigator, to the extent possible, to “conduct the
investigation in compliance with the best investigative practices and in compliance with
the processes and standards set forth in the Court’s previous orders and which govern the
operations of MCSO’s Professional Standards Bureau.” (Id. ¶ 4 (emphasis added)).
The Court further required “[t]he Sheriff, the County and the MCSO’s cooperation
with the investigation.” (Id. ¶ 7). MCSO “shall insure that the Independent Investigator
and each of the investigators or members of the investigators staff are given timely and
complete access to MCSO documents, office holders, employees, information, and
resources in conducting the investigation(s), making reports, and in pursuing other
activities under this Order.” (Id. (emphasis added)). This is a normal internal affairs
investigation with all associated procedures and protections.
One of the policies that governs the operations of the PSB, as relevant here, is
MCSO Internal Investigation Policy GH-2 (“GH-2”), which covers the subject of Internal
Investigations. GH-2 “establish[es] guidelines and procedures for accepting, processing,
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3292 Filed 10/27/25 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and investigating complaints of employee misconduct.” On October 12, 2023, the Court
ordered that MCSO adopt GH-2 as a new policy (see Doc. 2938), given the Court’s
requirement in the Third Supplemental Injunctive Order that the PSB, under the authority
of the Monitor, create and submit new policies and procedures related to MCSO’s internal
investigations. (Doc. 2830 ¶ 348).
In her motion, Chief Palopoli argues that the inability to have her attorney present
at the interview would “raise[] fundamental due process issues.” (Doc. 3289 at 2). She
points to previous interviews, conducted “by the Monitoring Team,” in which she was
permitted to have counsel present at the meeting—stating that “[t]his investigation should
be no different.” (Id.).
DISCUSSION
The Court denies Chief Palopoli’s motion for limited intervention. The Independent
Investigator stands in the shoes of PSB as she conducts her investigation. Accordingly,
any applicable PSB policy—such as GH-2—governs. Thus, Chief Palopoli is not entitled
to have her attorney present at her scheduled interview with the Independent Investigator.
First, the Court’s Order appointing Ms. Jaffer as the Independent Investigator makes
it clear that the Independent Investigator fills the role of a PSB investigator. (Doc. 3191).
Upon the determination of the PSB Commander that a complaint requires investigation,
the PSB ordinarily conducts such investigation. See MCSO Internal Investigation Policy
GH-2, Section 4. The PSB gathers and reports facts related to the allegations, and MCSO
employees “shall provide all relevant evidence and information in their custody and control
to internal affairs investigators.” Id. at Section 5. A PSB investigator is required to
“identify, collect, and consider all relevant, circumstantial, direct, and physical evidence,
including any audio or video recordings.” Id. at Section 5(A)(3). PSB then gathers all
information collected from the investigation into a report and forwards the report to the
Administrative Services Division and the Appointing Authority. Id. at Section
8(C)(1)(c)(2). The Appointing Authority then conducts a Pre-Determination Hearing to
decide whether to impose discipline. Id.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3292 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The process outlined by the Court for the Independent Investigator is the same. The
Independent Investigator is to “conduct the investigation in compliance with the best
investigative practices and in compliance with the processes and standards set forth in the
Court’s previous orders and which govern the operations of MCSO’s Professional
Standards Bureau.” (Doc. 3191 ¶ 4 (emphasis added)). The Court ordered MCSO’s
cooperation with the investigation, and MCSO was instructed to insure that the
Independent Investigator was given “timely and complete access to MCSO . . . office
holders [and] employees . . . .” (Id. ¶ 7). The Independent Investigator collects facts and
prepares reports setting forth the basis of any determinations of recommended charges. (Id.
¶¶ 12-14). The Independent Investigator does not impose any discipline—any discipline
would be imposed by an Independent Disciplinary Authority, as the Court has previously
done for internal affairs investigations that have been outsourced to an independent
investigator. (See, e.g., Doc. 1765 ¶¶ 296, 320-37).
Second, because the Independent Investigator serves as a PSB investigator, MCSO
policies govern. MCSO policy specifically allows for situations where an outside
investigator can investigate a complaint when the PSB Commander identifies a conflict or
potential conflict. See MCSO Internal Investigation Policy GH-2, Section 4(D). That
provision does not, however, limit the application of the remainder of the policies in GH-
2 when an outside authority has been enlisted to conduct such investigation. Thus, under
the terms of GH-2 itself, a witness-employee in an administrative investigation is not
entitled to have an attorney present as an observer.
Third, Chief Palopoli’s contention that she has had counsel present in meetings with
the Monitor’s team is meritless. At a status conference on September 12, 2025, the Court
remarked that “if there was no distinction between Ms. Jaffer and the monitor, we wouldn’t
have appointed Ms. Jaffer.” (Doc. 3251 at 17:3-4). The Court’s Order appointing Ms.
Jaffer as Independent Investigator makes it clear that the Independent Investigator and
Monitor have separate, independent authorities. (Doc. 3191 ¶¶ 7-9).
And fourth, Chief Palopoli fails to adequately show that her due process rights
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3292 Filed 10/27/25 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
would be violated without the presence of her attorney. Under GH-2, Chief Palopoli can
still communicate with her attorney during breaks in the interview. See MCSO Internal
Investigation Policy GH-2, Section 10(J). Chief Palopoli fails to cite a single case
supporting the proposition that she has a “right to counsel” in this situation (Doc. 3289 at
3).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Chief Palopoli is not entitled to have her attorney
attend her scheduled interview with the Independent Investigator.
Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Chief Palopoli’s motion for limited
intervention is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chief Palopoli attend her interview with the
Independent Investigator, scheduled for October 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., without the
presence of her attorney, pursuant to MCSO Internal Investigation Policy GH-2, Section
12(C).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Chief Palopoli may request to have an observer
present during the interview, in accordance with the terms laid out in pursuant to MCSO
Internal Investigation Policy GH-2, Section 12 (“Employee Right to an Observer”).
Dated this 27th day of October, 2025.
Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS Document 3292 Filed 10/27/25 Page 5 of 5