Donahoe v. Arpaio

• Decision Date: 05 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW,No. CV-11-0902-PHX-NVW,CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW,CV-11-0902-PHX-NVW
• Parties: Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County, a municipal entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V; and White Partnerships I-V, Defendants. Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife; et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Gary Donahoe and Cherie Donahoe,husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio, husband and wife;

Andrew Thomas and Anne Thomas, husband and wife; Lisa Aubuchon

and Peter R. Pestalozzi, wife and husband; Deputy Chief David Hendershott

and Anna Hendershott, husband and wife; Peter Spaw

and Jane Doe Spaw, husband and wife; Maricopa County,

a municipal entity; Jon Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; Black Corporations I-V;

and White Partnerships I-V, Defendants.

Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Kathleen Stapley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and Ava Arpaio,husband and wife; et al., Defendants.

No. CV-10-02756-PHX-NVW

No. CV-11-0902-PHX-NVW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dated: December 5, 2013

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS........................................................................................1

II. LEGAL STANDARD.................................................................................................3

III. STAPLEY I...................................................................................................................4

A. Legal standard ......................................................................................................... 4

B. Probable cause......................................................................................................... 5

1. The 1994 Board of Supervisors resolution ........................................................... 6

2. Statute of limitations........................................................................................... 9

C. Malice .................................................................................................................... 10

D. Favorable termination............................................................................................ 11

E. Accrual of action ................................................................................................... 12

IV. THE SEARCH.......................................................................................................12

A. Legal standard ....................................................................................................... 13

B. Evidence supporting the search warrant................................................................ 14

1. Evidence regarding fraud.................................................................................15

2. Evidence regarding bribery..............................................................................16

3. Evidence regarding misuse of public funds.....................................................17

C. Misrepresentations and omissions in the supporting affidavit.............................. 19

1. Misrepresentation and omissions of evidence of bribery.................................19

i. Review of bank records.................................................................................19

ii. Partnership documents .................................................................................. 20

iii. Public records of partnership........................................................................20

iv. Disclosure ...................................................................................................... 21v. Voting record ................................................................................................ 21

2. Misrepresentation and omissions of evidence of misused public funds .............. 23

D. Materiality of misrepresentations and omissions .................................................. 24

E. Deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth........................................................ 26

1. Aubuchon ......................................................................................................... 27

i. Involvement...................................................................................................27

ii. Evidence ........................................................................................................ 28

2. Thomas ............................................................................................................. 31

3. Hendershott ....................................................................................................... 32

4. Arpaio ............................................................................................................... 34

F. Qualified immunity ............................................................................................... 35

1. Legal standard .................................................................................................. 35

2. Application to the search.................................................................................. 36

V. THE ARREST AND STAPLEY II INDICTMENT...................................................36

A. Legal standard ....................................................................................................... 38

B. Probable cause....................................................................................................... 39

1. Fraudulent schemes and artifices (arrest)......................................................... 40

2. Perjury (arrest and indictment) ......................................................................... 42

3. False swearing (indictment) ............................................................................. 43

C. Defendants' roles in the arrest...............................................................................44

D. Malice or improper purpose in prosecuting Stapley II..........................................45

E. Favorable termination............................................................................................ 46

F. Qualified immunity for the arrest..........................................................................47

VI. THE RACKETEERING ACTION.......................................................................48

A. Background ............................................................................................................ 48

B. Legal standard ....................................................................................................... 51

C. Analysis .................................................................................................................51

1. Involvement ...................................................................................................... 51

2. Probable cause (reasonable belief and advice of counsel)...............................52

3. Malice...............................................................................................................53

4. Favorable termination....................................................................................... 54

VII. RETALIATION AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY..............................................55

A. Constitutional violation ......................................................................................... 56

B. Clearly established right........................................................................................ 58

XIII. ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY....................................................................................60

A. Legal standard ....................................................................................................... 61

B. Analysis .................................................................................................................61

IX. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES........................................................................................................................63

A. Legal standard ....................................................................................................... 63

B. Analysis .................................................................................................................64

X. UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES OR CUSTOMS.............................................64

XI. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...............................64

Before the Court are seven motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Donald T. Stapley, Jr. and Defendants Joseph Arpaio, Lisa Aubuchon, David Hendershott, and Andrew Thomas. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions will be denied and Defendants' motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. SUMMARY OF RULINGS

The allegations underlying this dispute are set forth in Donahoe v. Arpaio, 869 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2012), aff'd sub nom. Stapley v. Pestalozzi, 733 F.3d 804 (9th Cir. 2013). They describe an extended criminal and civil campaign against the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, of which Stapley was then a member, by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), the Maricopa County Attorney's Office (MCAO), and their joint anti-corruption task force (MACE). The details are not recounted here except as necessary to explain the rulings. Stapley has now moved for partial summary judgment against Sheriff Joseph Arpaio (Doc. 1060), former Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon (Doc. 1065), and former Chief Deputy David Hendershott (Doc. 1056). In turn, Arpaio (Doc. 1062), Aubuchon (Doc. 1066), Hendershott (Doc. 1072), and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas (Doc. 1063) have moved for summary judgment. Stapley's motion for partial summary judgment against Thomas (Doc. 1147) and Maricopa County's motion for summary judgment against Stapley (Doc. 1149) were previously denied.

Stapley seeks summary judgment that

(1) Arpaio ordered a retaliatory arrest in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

(2) Aubuchon engaged in judicial deception and searched his office in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and

(3) Hendershott wrongfully instituted a federal racketeering action against him in violation of state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

All Defendants seek summary judgment that

(1) they are not liable for maliciously prosecuting or investigating Stapley in the criminal actions

...