A recent budget report released Wednesday has revealed that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) in Phoenix misappropriated millions of dollars originally designated for court-ordered reforms tied to a high-profile racial profiling case. The findings have triggered renewed scrutiny of how the agency manages public funds and raised concerns among county officials and community leaders.

The compliance funds, earmarked to address systemic reforms mandated by a federal judge after the MCSO—under the leadership of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio—was found to have violated constitutional rights through racial profiling, were instead used for a range of unrelated expenses. According to budget analysts, the office diverted substantial sums to items far outside the scope of the court’s directives.

Among the most striking revelations, the report details that $2.8 million was spent on surplus camera licenses, $1.5 million went toward office renovations, and $1.3 million was used to purchase 42 vehicles. Additionally, $11,000 was spent on a golf cart. In total, the county has spent approximately $323 million related to the case, with the report indicating that 72% of the $226 million examined was misattributed. Furthermore, 70% of the positions funded were deemed inappropriate for the compliance budget.

Current Sheriff Jerry Sheridan responded to the report by challenging its conclusions, suggesting that certain expenses were left out of the analysis. “There are discrepancies in the report,” Sheridan noted, indicating that the department does not entirely agree with the characterization of the spending.

However, Raul Piña, a member of the community advisory board overseeing the sheriff’s office, expressed concern over the implications of the findings. “The report raises questions about the sheriff’s office’s integrity,” he said, pointing to a broader issue of accountability within the department.

Thomas Galvin, chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, said the board’s legal counsel is now reviewing the findings. While acknowledging the seriousness of the report, Galvin expressed continued confidence in the sheriff’s budgeting team, highlighting that the matter is still under evaluation.

The court-ordered oversight stems from a 2013 federal ruling that found the MCSO had engaged in unconstitutional racial profiling practices during immigration enforcement operations. The court mandated sweeping reforms, including improved training, data collection, and independent monitoring. Since then, the sheriff’s office has operated under strict judicial supervision, with compliance spending subject to review.

This latest report reignites debate over the effectiveness of that supervision and whether the sheriff’s office has made meaningful progress in reform. Some officials are questioning the sustainability of the current oversight structure, given the ballooning costs and apparent mismanagement.

As of now, the federal judge overseeing the case has not issued a public response to the report. County officials continue to assess the findings, and further actions may be taken pending the outcome of the legal review.