Full Breakdown
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Contract with AZ Truthfinder Found to Involve Right-Wing Affiliations
By Drooid · · How we work
Hiring of AZ Truthfinder Raises Conflict Concerns
A federal monitor’s report filed in the long-standing civil-rights class action Melendres v. Sheridan was unsealed this week, revealing that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) hired the investigative firm AZ Truthfinder in 2025 to conduct internal investigations that the agency’s Professional Standards Bureau was barred from handling. The contract, worth $270,865, was awarded on June 17 after the procurement process closed on June 10.
Background of the Monitorship and Procurement
The lawsuit, originally filed as Melendres v. Arpaio in 2007, placed the sheriff’s office under a court-ordered monitorship overseen by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow.
Findings on Right-Wing Ties and Vetting Failures
The report identified AZ Truthfinder’s owner, Stephanie Ameiss, as having previously worked for two right-wing entities: Understanding the Threat—a consulting firm later designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for publishing anti-Muslim, anti-Black-Lives-Matter, and anti-Democratic content—and Cyber Ninjas, the firm that conducted the controversial 2020 Maricopa County ballot audit. Ameiss billed Cyber Ninjas $23,550 for work performed during the audit period, and her résumé submitted to MCSO omitted these affiliations. The monitor concluded that MCSO either ignored or failed to discover these connections, rendering the vetting process “sham” or “unacceptable.”
Implications for the Ongoing Monitorship
Community Advisory Board member Raul Piña, who oversees the monitorship, described the findings as “shocking” and indicative of systemic dishonesty within the sheriff’s office. Critics argue that the revelations underscore the need to maintain the federal monitorship, while MCSO, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and the ACLU of Arizona did not respond to requests for comment before publication. The report’s exposure of inadequate vetting and the firm’s extremist links may complicate negotiations over remaining provisions of the monitorship and could prompt further judicial scrutiny of MCSO’s internal oversight practices.