Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Law Enforcement Data Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves sheriff MOUs including FinCEN access; supervisors debate privacy, warrants and oversight
Summary
The Board approved interagency agreements including a Treasury FinCEN MOU that allows the sheriff’s office to query flagged financial transaction data. The vote on the MOU package passed after a motion to reconsider one item; the final vote on the FinCEN item was 4–1. Public speakers raised Fourth Amendment and warrant concerns.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved three intergovernmental MOUs brought by the Sheriff’s Office that include an agreement with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a Treasury Department entity that aggregates financial‑reporting data. The items were taken together; after discussion and public comment the board ultimately approved them, and a subsequent reconsideration produced a final 4–1 vote on the FinCEN item.
Jim Prindiville, chief financial officer for the sheriff, explained the FinCEN MOU gives the sheriff’s investigations bureau controlled access to FinCEN’s database of flagged banking transactions — typically records of certain large or suspicious transactions — under strict usage, logging and audit requirements. Prindiville said FinCEN hits help investigators identify bank accounts and transactions linked to narcotics trafficking, violent crime and other investigations; requests are justified in writing, access is logged, and FinCEN audits local use. He said reports must be destroyed within a limited retention window and can be shared only as allowed by the MOU (for example, with the county attorney on criminal matters).
Several members of the public raised constitutional concerns, saying they wanted a warrant requirement and stronger safeguards. County legal counsel (Tom Liddy, Civil Division Chief, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office) and the sheriff’s CFO answered that the FinCEN program was established following the USA PATRIOT Act and the Bank Secrecy Act, and that legal limits and federal audit controls apply. Liddy said the statute and federal rules require certain procedural protections and that the state’s legislation referenced elsewhere in the agenda (on contract certifications) also governs other contracting provisions.
The board initially approved items 60–62 together by voice vote. Later in the meeting Supervisor Stewart asked to change his vote on item 62; the board voted to reconsider and held a separate revote on item 62. On the final tally the motion to approve item 62 passed 4–1. Supervisors said they wanted additional briefing on legal considerations and oversight for how FinCEN data would be used; Supervisor Stewart requested a follow‑up discussion with counsel to review constitutional and supervisory safeguards.
The sheriff’s office said requests for FinCEN information will be channeled through its investigations bureau, justified in writing, centrally logged and subject to federal audit. The board’s approval authorizes the sheriff to continue using the FinCEN service under the MOU’s terms; supervisors asked for further legal briefings about applicable statutes and case law.
Outcome: Items 60–62 approved (item 62 final approval 4–1).
