by Staff Reporter | Apr 28, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) introduced legislation this week to create stronger rules on court-ordered federal oversight of police.
The proposed bill is a direct response to the ongoing monitorship of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), which began well over a decade ago following racial profiling allegations under the administration of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Biggs’ Monitor Accountability Act would further limit federal district courts’ discretion on monitor selection and duration.
The bill as written would limit monitors to five years of service, prohibit courts from reappointing the same monitors under the same court order, prohibit monitors from coming from the same law firm or employer, cap monitor compensation and encourage courts to require pro bono or reduced-cost work, require public comment on proposed monitors prior to court appointment, limit extensions of monitorship to those without substantial and sustained compliance, and require case reassignment to a different judge after six years.
Additionally, the Monitor Accountability Act would apply retroactively to monitorships older than six years. This would ensure Maricopa County — Biggs’ impetus for the bill — secures a new monitor and judge.
The costs associated with the monitorship have neared $350 million according to Biggs and the county, about a tenth of which has gone to the court-appointed monitor and his firm. Proponents of continued monitorship counter that the actual cost of the monitorship amounts closer to $60 million.
Biggs, who is running to unseat Gov. Katie Hobbs this November, released a statement claiming that the MCSO monitorship, among others, has become exploitative.
“The federal monitor’s continued existence in our county and propensity for moving the goalposts from his original charge only serves to exploit taxpayers and undermine the brave work of the men and women who serve our communities — and this is only one of dozens of similar arrangements across the country,” said Biggs. “It’s time for Congress to take back the reins from rogue judges and monitors who have exceeded appropriate bounds.”
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels joined Biggs’ statement with support for the bill as a corrective measure to prevent further exploitation of the monitor system.
“We’ve seen this problem first-hand in Arizona: Maricopa County has been the victim of a rogue monitor for more than 13 years, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and shifting resources away from keeping the community safe,” said Dannels.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors filed a motion to end the monitorship last December, and in February testified to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on their effort in court. Biggs led that subcommittee hearing.
The board has pleaded for relief from what it claims to be indefinite taxpayer spending to keep up with ever-moving goalposts.
The Goldwater Institute has also requested the court to publicize the invoices associated with MCSO’s monitorship.
“[T]he government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are,” stated the organization’s vice president of legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur.
The Department of Justice, who initially filed the lawsuit under former President Barack Obama along with the ACLU, signaled support for an end to MCSO’s monitorship.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 25, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 11, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) says they won’t be posting the mugshots of recently arrested child sex traffickers under the claim that Arizona law prohibits the posting of mugshots.
“It is currently against the law in Arizona to post mugshots and names on social media related to arrests,” said SPD.
However, it’s not Arizona law that prohibits the posting of mugshots. SPD based their claim on the 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Houston v. Maricopa. The agency involved in that ruling, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), modified their mugshot posting practice in order to comply with that ruling.
SPD issued the statement in response to criticisms that they failed to post the mugshots identifying around 200 individuals arrested in a weeks-long sex trafficking sting by SPD’s Human Exploitation and Trafficking Unit from the end of January through mid-February.
Charges included child sex trafficking, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, luring a minor for sexual exploitation, prostitution and pandering, and weapons misconduct. Some of those individuals arrested had outstanding felony warrants.
MCSO resumed their posting of mugshots in a manner they claim achieves compliance with the court ruling last August.
An MCSO spokesperson, William Jinks, indicated at the time that the court ruling didn’t make it “illegal” to post mugshots. Rather, the judgment established guidelines for posting.
“The changes made to the mug shot page are in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court,” said Jinks.
The 2024 ruling found specifically that MCSO’s policy of posting mugshots was unconstitutional — not the entire practice of posting mugshots.
The court took issue with MCSO’s policy of posting personally identifying information with the mugshot (birth date, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and arresting charges), removing the online posting after three days, and failing to identify the arresting agency.
Ninth Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon ruled that governmental transparency wasn’t a valid justification for MCSO’s mugshot posting policy.
“Governmental actions that harmfully affect arrestees pretrial can violate due process if impermissibly punitive, whether a condition of pretrial detention or not,” stated Berzon. “What is the public interest, for example, in publicly disclosing [the arrestee’s] weight? So, too, with other personal information including his birthdate, height, eye color, and hair color. The County nowhere purports to show, much less succeeds in showing, why this level of granular detail about [the arrestee’s] body and personal identity rationally furthers an interest in government transparency.”
MCSO adapted its policy to resolve those contentions by the court. The new mugshots page lists far less information: booking number, first and last name, and charges. Mugshots also have watermarks identifying MCSO as the arresting agency. The page also has a disclaimer posted at the top: “All individuals are innocent until proven guilty.” The page only includes the 100 most recent mugshots.
Houston v. Maricopa is currently under civil appeal within the Arizona District One Court of Appeals. The latest development in that case was the court’s approval last month for oral arguments.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jan 25, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Goldwater Institute is asking a federal judge to allow Maricopa County taxpayers to see how public funds have been spent during more than a decade of federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on Tuesday, Goldwater urged the U.S. District Court to reconsider a 2014 order that keeps the federal monitor’s invoices confidential. Under that order, the court-appointed monitor, Warshaw & Associates, submits billing records exclusively to the judge, placing them outside public view.
Scrutiny of the court-appointed monitor has been growing in recent weeks. Over $300 million has been spent on oversight in the past 14 years, with approximately 10% going to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw, according to Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin. The Board submitted a court filing in December asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona to end federal oversight of MCSO. Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell agreed in a post to X, writing, “There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, Timothy Sandefur, explained, “That means Maricopa County taxpayers have no way of knowing how their tax dollars are being spent on one of the most important services the county provides.”
“Although the Goldwater Institute has repeatedly requested copies of these invoices, the county does not have itemized statements, and the federal monitor refused to produce them,” he added. “But as we point out in the brief we filed on Tuesday, the government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are. The court in this case has never done so—and even if it had, circumstances have changed in the decade since the lawsuit began.”
The filing comes as Maricopa County separately argues that continued federal oversight of MCSO under the Melendres v. Arpaio ruling is no longer justified. In a pending motion, the county contends that the sheriff’s office has implemented substantial reforms and that the monitorship should be terminated.
In its brief, Goldwater argues that the continued sealing of the monitor’s invoices prevents taxpayers from knowing how their money is being spent and undermines transparency principles embedded in Arizona and federal law.
“History did not end in 2014, and continued federal oversight of MCSO cannot be based on decade-old facts,” the brief states. “It’s crucial that Maricopa County taxpayers be permitted to know where their tax dollars are going — and that’s hindered by the existing orders and continued federal oversight without a full public accounting.”
The court has not yet ruled on either Maricopa County’s motion to end federal oversight or Goldwater’s request for public access to the monitor’s billing records.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Jan 4, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Corporate media is making the case that the state’s largest sheriff’s office still needs federal oversight for racial profiling.
ABC 15 aired a segment criticizing a court filing requesting an end to the decade-long federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). The oversight emerged from the Melendres v. Arpaio case, a class action complaint against allegedly racially motivated detentions that occurred during illegal migrant sweeps.
FOIAzona caught reporting errors made within a report by ABC 15 that no longer appears to be published, including the claim that MCSO filed the court motion.
However, it was the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) who submitted that court filing earlier this month. MCBOS has budgetary power over MCSO.
In their court filing, MCBOS made the case that MCSO had long ago achieved 100 percent compliance in remedying issues of racially motivated detentions. The county argued that further federal oversight would only divert critical funds for public safety.
In a video explaining the filing, MCBOS Chairman Thomas Galvin said the end to federal oversight was long overdue.
“After 14 years, four sheriffs, and hundreds of millions of spent tax dollars, it is essential to defend taxpayer money if federal oversight is no longer warranted,” said Galvin. “All that’s left to enforce are matters unrelated to discriminatory policing which should be left to the sheriff who was elected by you: the Maricopa County residents.”
The 14 years of oversight have cost the county over $300 million in compliance. Around ten percent of those payments went to the court monitor, Robert Warshaw.
Leading up to MCBOS filing were months of allegations that Warshaw has a financial incentive to continue federal oversight of MCSO. Warshaw has earned over $30 million in monitor fees since taking on oversight of MCSO in January 2014 — around $3 million annually.
Warshaw faces similar accusations of exploiting federal oversight orders for personal gain in connection to his 15-plus years of monitoring the Oakland Police Department in California. There he earns over $1 million annually.
Warshaw has also earned millions from federal monitor assignments in New York, Michigan, and Louisiana.
Warshaw formerly served as the deputy drug czar for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under former President Bill Clinton.
Almost a decade ago, Judicial Watch reported on allegations that Warshaw allegedly employed “harsh” tactics that distracted from the county’s law enforcement activities.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell said Warshaw’s presence is no longer warranted.
“There is no defense for this ‘federal monitor,’” said Mitchell. “One more reason I like to get my news from the non-fiction section.”
Mitchell has been a vocal critic of Warshaw’s continued presence.
“It’s time we stop talking about Joe Arpaio — he is long gone and has been replaced by 3 different sheriffs from both political parties — and start talking about why the federal monitor, Robert Warshaw, is dragging this on and on,” said Mitchell in a May post. “Maricopa taxpayers should be outraged that we are at $350 million. Warshaw has no incentive to wrap this up.”
Back in October, Congressman Andy Biggs also asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to lift MCSO’s federal oversight. Supervisors Mark Stewart and Debbie Lesko, along with Mitchell, offered their support for the letter.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
