William McManus Lawsuit

FILED
1/21/2021 10:38 AM
Mary Angie Garcia ______________
2021CI00942
Bexar County District Clerk
Accepted By: Brenda Carrillo District Court : ______________
45
0$5<$1*,(*$5&,$
Bexar County District Clerk citpps
Request for Process

Style: _________________________________
The State of Texas Vs. ___________________________________
William McManus
Request the following process: (Please check all that Apply)

Citation Notice Temporary Restraining Order Notice of Application for Protective Order
Temporary Protective Order Precept with hearing Precept without a hearing Writ of Attachment
Writ of Habeas Corpus Writ of Garnishment Writ of Sequestration Capias Other:
1.
Name: William McManus
Registered Agent/By Serving:
Address
Service Type: (Check One) Private Process Sheriff &RPPLVVLRQHURI,QVXUDQFH 6$([SUHVV1HZV Hart Beat Courthouse Door
Certified Mail Registered Mail2XWRI&RXQW\ Secretary of State &RQVWDEOH3FWBB
2. 3FWVHUYHVSURFHVVFRXQW\ZLGH
Name:
Address
Service Type: (Check One) Private Process Sheriff &RPPLVVLRQHURI,QVXUDQFH 6$([SUHVV1HZV Hart Beat Courthouse Door
Certified Mail Registered Mail Out of County Secretary of State &RQVWDEOH3FWBB
Name:
Address
Service Type: (Check One) Private Process Sheriff &RPPLVVLRQHURI,QVXUDQFH 6$([SUHVV1HZV +art Beat &ourthouseDoor
Certified Mail Registered Mail Out of County Secretary of State &RQVWDEOH3FWBBB
Name:
Address
Service Type: (Check One) Private Process Sheriff 6$([SUHVV1HZV
&RPPLVVLRQHURI,QVXUDQFH Hart Beat Courthouse Door
Certified Mail Registered Mail Out of County Secretary of State &RQVWDEOH3FWBBB
3FWVHUYHVSURFHVVFRXQW\ZLGH
Title of Document/Pleading to be Attached to Process:

THE STATE OF TEXAS’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANT
Name of Attorney/Pro se: Cleve W. Doty Bar Number: 2406927

Address: P.O. Box 12548, Mail Code 009 Phone Number: (512) 936-1414
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Attorney for Plaintiff X Defendant Other
****IF
I SERVICE
V IS NOT
NOT
T PICKED
PIICKE
ED UP WI
WITHIN
THIN
H 14 BUSINESS
BUSI
SINES
SS DAYS,
S SERVICE
V WILL BE DESTROYED****
FILED
1/15/2021 3:35 PM
Mary Angie Garcia
Bexar County District Clerk 2021CI00942
Accepted By: Martha Medellin
CAUSE NO. __________________
KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
WILLIAM MCMANUS, in his official § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
capacity as Chief of San Antonio Police §
Department, §
§
Respondent. § 45th
_____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
THE STATE OF TEXAS’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN INFORMATION IN

THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO
TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE:
The State of Texas, acting by and through its Attorney General, Ken Paxton, petitions for
leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto to declare that William McManus violated
Section 752.053 of the Texas Government Code, which caused the forfeiture of his office, and to
remove William McManus from office. The original Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto
is attached and incorporated herein by reference.
I. Grounds and Applicable Law
A quo warranto is a lawsuit “through which the State acts to protect itself and the good of
the public generally.” Fuller Springs v. State ex rel. City of Lufkin, 513 S.W.2d 17, 19 (Tex. 1974);
see also Newsom v. State, 922 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.—Austin 1996, writ denied) (“In the
modern context, the State uses quo warranto actions to challenge the authority to engage in certain
practices specifically enumerated by statute.”). The applicable law appears in Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code §§ 66.001, et seq. Additional procedures are found in Tex. R. Civ. P. 779, et seq.
State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 1 of 5
The State moves for leave to file the Information because state law demands it. Under Texas
law, the Attorney General is commanded to file a petition for quo warranto whenever he receives
“evidence, including evidence of a statement by the public officer, establishing probable grounds
that the public officer engaged in conduct [amounting to a violation of Section 752.053 of the Texas
Government Code].” Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.0565(b) (providing that “The attorney general shall
file” a quo warranto proceeding under those circumstances).
Specifically, Texas law provides that “a person holding an elective or appointive office of
a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the
person violates Section 752.053.” Id. at (a). In short, Texas law provides that violations of Section
752.053 are automatically “act[s]” that require forfeiture of one’s office. In short, Texas law
refuses to allow officers of political subdivisions in the State of Texas to violate Section 752.053 of
the Texas Government Code.
Aware of this law, Defendant McManus nonetheless did an act or allowed an act that by
law causes a forfeiture of his office—by violating Section 752.053 of the Government Code. Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.001(2) (providing for quo warranto when “a public officer does an
act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office[.]”).
McManus was appointed to his position by the City Manager. Josh Baugh, Sculley picks five
finalists for police chief, including interim, SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS (last updated Sept. 1, 2015,
5:55 PM), https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sculley-names-five-finalists-for-
police-chief-6456250.php. San Antonio provides in its City Charter that its police chief is
appointed as a department head. San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. 5, §§ 50 (providing for creation
of a police department), § 51 (providing that each department head shall have a director appointed

and removable by the City Manager), § 57 (appointing police chief as “director of the police
department”).
The State moves for leave to file the Information. Texas law provides that “a person
holding an elective or appointive office of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes
the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person violates Section 752.053.” Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 752.0565(a).
The Attorney General, on his own motion or at the request of an individual relator, is
authorized to proceed in the name of the State by quo warranto. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§ 66.002(a)–(c). “If there is probable ground for the proceeding, the judge shall grant leave to file
the information, order the information to be filed, and order process to be issued.” Id. § 66.002(d).
When the information is filed, the clerk shall issue citation as in civil cases, commanding the
defendant to appear and answer. Tex. R. Civ. P. 780. The case then proceeds the same as a civil
case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 781.
Probable grounds are determined from the petition. State ex rel. Manchac v. City of Orange,
274 S.W.2d 886, 888 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1955, no writ) (“If the petition sought to be filed
stated a cause of action, the court was in error in refusing permission to file it.”); see also Ramirez
v. State, 973 S.W.2d 388, 393 (Tex. App.—El Paso, 1998, no pet.) (“[W]e will accept as true the
allegations contained in the State’s petition. If the petition states a cause of action, then the trial
court did not err in granting permission to file it.”).
This petition, including the attached Information, states a cause of action. As set forth in
detail in the attached Information, Defendant McManus repeatedly violated Section 752.053 of the
Texas Government Code on December 23, 2017, as well as before and after that date. In fact,

Defendant McManus did so despite (1) knowing specifically about this law, and (2) despite
concerns from his officers that they would be violating this law.
As a result, Defendant McManus repeatedly forfeited his office as a matter of law and may
no longer lawfully hold his office.
II. Request
The State respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to file the Information, order the
Clerk of Court to file the Information, and order the Clerk of Court to issue citation and process.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 2021.
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
GRANT DORFMAN
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
SHAWN COWLES
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
Associate Deputy for Special Litigation
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel
State Bar No. 24059977
eric.hudson@oag.texas.gov
/s/ Cleve W. Doty __

CLEVE W. DOTY
Assistant Attorney General
cleve.doty@oag.texas.gov

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
P.O. Box 12548, Mail Code 003
Telephone: (512) 936-1414
Counsel for Plaintiff

Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General

CAUSE NO. _____________________

§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
Respondent. § _____ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO
TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE:
The State of Texas, with leave of the Court, acting by and through its Attorney General,
Ken Paxton, files this Information to declare that William McManus violated Section 752.053 of
the Texas Government Code, which caused the forfeiture of his office, and to remove William
McManus from office. In support of this Information, the State shows:
I. Parties and Jurisdiction
1. Plaintiff is the State of Texas (the “State”) and is represented by its Attorney
General, Ken Paxton. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.002. The State brings this action under
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 66.001, et seq. The Court has jurisdiction to remove Chief of
Police William McManus through quo warranto, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.001(2), and to
award costs for the prosecution of this Information, id. § 66.003(2). The State intends to conduct
discovery under a Level 2 Discovery Control Plan. Tex. R. Civ. P. 190.1, 190.3.
Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 1 of 12

2. Defendant William McManus (“McManus”) is the Chief of the San Antonio
Police Department (“SAPD”) and is the director of that department for the City of San Antonio.
San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. 5, § 57.
3. Pursuant to Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 17.024(b) and City Charter
article 2, section 10, Defendant may be served with civil process by serving Leticia M. Vacek, City
Clerk, at 114 W. Commerce, San Antonio, Texas 78205, or anywhere process may be lawfully
served.
II. Facts and Grounds for Relief
4. In 2017, the Texas Legislature enacted a new law designed to prevent local officials
from failing to cooperate with, assist, or limiting federal law enforcement authorities from doing
their job of protecting Texas citizens. That law is codified as Section 752.053 of the Texas
Government Code but is popularly known as “Senate Bill 4,” after the bill that led to the law.
5. Under Senate Bill 4, Texas public officials must assist or cooperate with federal
immigration law-enforcement officers. Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(b)(3). They also may not
prohibit or materially limit enforcement of immigration laws, whether by policy, pattern, or in
actual practice. Id. at § 752.053(a).
6. Moreover, under Senate Bill 4, Texas local officials may not restrain their own
officers and personnel from sharing information about immigration crimes with federal agencies.
Id. at § 752.053(b)(2).
7. Under Senate Bill 4, public officials—whether appointed or elected—must refrain
from violating Section 752.053 of the Texas Government Code. Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.0565 (“[A]

person holding an elective or appointive office of a political subdivision of this state does an act
that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person violates Section 752.053.”).
8. In fact, a public official may forfeit his or office by unintentionally violating section
752.053. Compare Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.0565(a) (providing for removal when a public official
“violates Section 752.053”) with id. at § 752.056 (providing for civil penalties only when an
individual or entity “intentionally violated Section 752.053”). The Legislature’s clear commands
provide that even an unintentional violation of this law is “an act that causes the forfeiture of the
person’s office[.]” Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.0565(a).
9. Defendant McManus knew about Senate Bill 4 and rallied against it. Despite his
clear knowledge, he nonetheless decided to implement policies that explicitly violate the law.
10. For instance, McManus and City of San Antonio (“City”) leaders gathered and
created a new policy, in summer 2017, in anticipation of this new law, whereby they would attempt
to thwart federal agents’ attempts to apprehend fugitives.
11. McManus and the police also implemented an “immigration policy” that, by its
own text, prohibits police officers from ever referring a recent or first-time illegal alien to U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE’). SAPD policy specifically restricts officers from
handing anyone over to federal law enforcement authorities unless a federal agent presents a
deportation warrant, yet virtually no first-time illegal entrant will have one, having evaded federal
border enforcement agents already.
12. The Office of the Attorney General incorporates by reference the allegations and
discussion of McManus, his actions, and City policies from the most recent amended petition in

Cause No. D-1-GN-18-007133; Paxton v. McManus, et al., 345th Judicial District Court, Travis
County, Texas. A copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit A.
13. In addition, McManus implemented these policies specifically on December 23,
2017, in response to an incident whereby San Antonio Police (“SAPD”) apprehended numerous
illegal immigrants. On that day, McManus repeatedly violated Section 752.053.
McManus Repeatedly Violates Senate Bill 4 on December 23, 2017
14. On December 23, 2017, SAPD apprehended a trailer containing at least a dozen
illegal immigrants who admitted to crossing the border illegally and paying to be smuggled into the
United States.
15. McManus and City leaders recognized the similarity between this incident and a
July 2017 incident where ten suspected illegal immigrants died in a San Antonio Walmart parking
lot.
16. The similarity was no coincidence. SAPD received a report from a federal
immigration agent soon after the December 23, 2017 incident that detailed connections between
the smuggling organization that coordinated the December 23, 2017 incident and the July 2017
incident, such as that truck drivers from both incidents were recruited to smuggle by the same
individual.
17. Despite the similarity noted at the time, McManus and City leaders were so
committed to their efforts to thwart federal immigration authorities that not a single individual
received any jail sentence from the December 23, 2017 incident.
18. McManus and City leadership became personally involved in police handling of the
incident and ensured that Homeland Security agents were denied access to the immigrants before

they were first questioned by and provided access to an immigration attorney and spirited out of
town.
19. On December 23, 2017, SAPD initially began cooperating with federal authorities,
who advised SAPD that enforcement agents were en route and would take the illegal aliens.
20. SAPD itself had pledged transportation to the illegal aliens, but McManus then
intervened and ordered his officers to halt any cooperation with federal agents. In his words,
caught on an officer’s body camera, “We are not involving ICE in this investigation!” Instead,
officers were ordered by McManus to keep ICE out.
21. For his part, McManus changed the investigation’s approach after he arrived on
the scene of the December 2017 incident, intercepted an immigration agent as he arrived on the
scene of the December 2017 incident, and stalled the agent at the scene while an immigration
attorney met with the illegal aliens before even a single SAPD detective spoke to them about the
smuggling. In fact, federal agents told SAPD that they were taking the case and were marshalling
additional federal agents to handle the situation, but McManus stopped that cooperation once he
arrived at the scene.
22. SAPD officers led immigration officials to believe that SAPD would transport aliens
to them or allow them to take custody of the illegal aliens; however, McManus intervened and the
illegal aliens were provided an immigration lawyer and told by that lawyer: “The police are
protecting you from immigration.”
23. McManus explicitly ordered his officers to refuse to give custody of the illegal aliens
to immigration agents, as Mayor Ron Nirenberg himself admits: “Talked to chief [McManus]. His

explicit instruction is that no one should be remanded to DHS [Department of Homeland Security]
. . . .”
24. In fact, City leaders acted upon the Mayor’s desire to thwart federal law
enforcement authorities, even according to the former City Manager Sherly Sculley: “I just spoke
w[ith] Chief. He will call us from scene. I told Bill [McManus] that the Mayor does not want ICE
called . . . .”
25. SAPD officers continued attempting to cooperate with federal authorities,
however—at least enough to hopefully avoid breaking the law. The SAPD Sergeant in charge of
the detectives who were asked to handle the case by McManus refused to let the illegal immigrants
go without a direct order from his chain of command, since federal agents were requesting custody
of the immigrants.
26. A federal agent had requested the illegal aliens repeatedly that day and had met the
Sergeant in person to again request that the aliens be handed over to federal law enforcement
authorities.
27. Detectives began reading Miranda rights to the smuggled individuals who had
admitted to coordinating with and paying the smugglers, and detectives held them for immigration
authorities. But then, an SAPD detective informed the on-duty Sergeant in the SAPD Special
Victim’s Unit that McManus had an arrangement to release everyone and avoid federal agents, so
the Sergeant asked for clarification from his command.
28. The Sergeant had browsed a version of Senate Bill 4 and, on that basis, was
concerned that SAPD would be violating Senate Bill 4 if it released these individuals.

29. An SAPD commander, his supervisor, also learned that McManus was blocking
federal agents from working the incident and he “begged” the Deputy Chief to convince McManus
not to do so. He expressed concerns that his officers might be “aiding and abetting” criminal
actions, helping criminals “escape prosecution of the law,” and themselves “breaking the law.”
McManus, however, ignored those concerns.
30. Instead, the Sergeant’s commanders specifically ordered the Sergeant that he must
release the known suspected illegal immigrants per McManus’s direct orders. In fact, the
Sergeant’s commander recently testified under oath that McManus later bragged to his
commanders about his behavior towards immigration officials—specifically, that he had “ran their
assess off.”
31. So, the Sergeant released the immigrants out the back door to a charity group and
an immigration lawyer, away from federal agents.
Smugglers Escape Jail Time While McManus Dissembles,

Hides his Actions, and Even Destroys Evidence
32. As a result, all of the illegal aliens escaped. No one was prosecuted for their
involvement in the larger smuggling organization at all. No smugglers from the larger smuggling
organization were even pursued by SAPD.
33. Federal immigration enforcement authorities and law enforcement agents were
thwarted in their attempts to further pursue a smuggling organization already responsible for a
mass homicide in the City.
34. Instead, the Bexar County District Attorney informed City officials that “this
makes us a sanctuary city.”

35. By contrast, McManus and City leaders, including the Mayor, defended SAPD’s
actions as routine police policy. In the Mayor’s words: “[A City Council Member] was already
briefed, multiple times by multiple parties, about SAPD protocol, how it was followed to the letter
. . . .”
36. McManus then lied about the incident publicly.
37. The Office of the Attorney General sent McManus and the City a letter demanding
that McManus preserve all information about the incident, and his communications in particular.
The City Attorney promised they would do so.
38. Instead, McManus deleted his communications from that day and has no
recollection of the location of the phone he used on and immediately after December 23, 2017.
39. McManus no longer has or can provide his own communications—
communications which appear likely to have implicated McManus in serious violations of law,
including Senate Bill 4, by intentionally thwarting federal law enforcement agents and a federal law
enforcement investigation.
40. McManus deceived the Office of the Attorney General and refused to reveal this
information in the face of repeated requests and even litigation demands for more than two years.
41. In fact, McManus recently admitted that instructing officers that ICE would not be
involved would not “follow the law,” in his words—yet he is seen doing exactly that on video, and
confirmed by his own officers in depositions. McManus is seen on body footage taken at the scene
of the December 23, 2017, incident, directing that “We are not involving ICE in this
investigation!”

42. The Office of the Attorney General sued the City and McManus for civil penalties
and obtained further information, including the information cited herein, regarding McManus’s
repeated violation of Section 752.053 of the Texas Government Code (Senate Bill 4). The Office
of the Attorney General conducted depositions in the civil case, which are ongoing, and obtained
incriminating statements. The Office of the Attorney General also received a number of City
documents with communications stating the City’s specific intent to violate Section 752.053 of the
Texas Government Code as well as McManus’s specific statements making clear that McManus
violated the law and even intended to violate the law.
43. As a result, the Office of the Attorney General filed this lawsuit to seek the required
relief.
III. Requested Relief
44. The State seeks judgment declaring that William McManus violated Section
752.053 of the Texas Government Code, which caused him to forfeit his office. Tex. Gov’t Code
§ 752.0565 (“[A] person holding an elective or appointive office of a political subdivision of this
state does an act that causes the forfeiture of the person’s office if the person violates Section
752.053.”).
45. The State seeks an order removing McManus from office.
46. The State also seeks against McManus, who acted without legal authority, an award
of its costs in prosecuting this Information and any other relief permitted under Section 66.003 of
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
IV. Request for Disclosure

47. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Texas requests that Defendant disclose,
within 50 days of service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2
V. Prayer
48. The State prays that McManus be cited to appear and answer and that, upon final
trial or other resolution hereof, judgment be entered declaring that McManus violated Section
752.053 of the Texas Government Code and forfeited his office and that he is unlawfully holding
office. The State also seeks judgment awarding the State its costs of prosecution and such other
relief to which it may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 2021.

KEN PAXTON
BRENT WEBSTER
GRANT DORFMAN
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel
/s/ Cleve W. Doty

CLEVE W. DOTY

Telephone: (512) 936-1414
Attorneys for Plaintiff

State of Texas

VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Cleve W. Doty,
Assistant Attorney General, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed below, and
upon first being duly sworn, on his oath deposed and stated that he has read the foregoing
document and that based on knowledge gathered from documents, testimony, and other discovery
devices, the statements of fact contained herein are true and correct.
________________________________
CLEVE W. DOTY
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this _____ 15 day of ___________,

January
2021, to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
______________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas

EXHIBIT A
10/20/2020 4:29 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-18-007133 D-1-GN-18-007133
Adrian Rodriguez

§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
WILLIAM MCMANUS, in his official § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Department; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO; and §
ERIK WALSH, in his official capacity as City §
Manager of City of San Antonio, §
§
Defendants. §
§ 345th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:
Plaintiff Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, files this Second Amended Petition for
writ of injunction, civil penalties, and fees against William McManus, in his official capacity as
Chief of the San Antonio Police Department; the City of San Antonio (“City”); and Erik Walsh,
in his official capacity as City Manager of City of San Antonio, (collectively “Defendants”) for
violations of Senate Bill 4 (“SB4”). In support of this Petition, Plaintiff hereby states as follows:
1. In the Spring and Summer of 2017, the Texas Legislature passed—and the
Governor signed—SB4, a law prohibiting local police and local officials from limiting federal
immigration enforcement and requiring fulsome cooperation with federal immigration
enforcement authorities.
Second Amended Petition Page 1

2. As that law went into effect, San Antonio Chief of Police William McManus
(“Chief McManus”) developed policies and practices, in coordination with City Officials, for the
San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) to unlawfully circumvent SB4’s requirements.
3. Specifically, soon after SB4’s passage, Chief McManus demonstrated how his new
policies and practices worked during the investigation of a human smuggling incident that occurred
on December 23, 2017 (“December Incident”), involving the smuggling of at least 12 suspected
illegal immigrants. On that day, at approximately 12:03 p.m., SAPD received a call about a
suspicious eighteen-wheeler containing multiple occupants in its trailer. Upon arrival, SAPD
officers found twelve suspected aliens, ten males and two females, including one suspected illegal
alien who was a 16-year-old minor, in the trailer.
4. During the December Incident, McManus kept federal agents away from and out
of an investigation involving human smuggling, directing his officers not to cooperate with a federal
agent and personally directing that “We are not involving ICE in this investigation.”
5. In fact, McManus and City political leaders orchestrated events to ensure that
illegal immigrants from the December Incident avoided federal custody even though McManus
initially intervened in the situation because of the similarity between it and another trailerload of
smuggled immigrants only months before, where smugglers killed ten immigrants. The City later
learned, as it seemed to anticipate, that the same smugglers who coordinated and funded this
smuggling operation apparently also had connections to the smuggling operation that killed ten
people in San Antonio.
6. McManus and the City refused repeated federal requests during the December
Incident, including repeated requests to take detained illegal aliens caught in the smuggling

operation. As a result, the smuggler walked away with only a deferred adjudication, and no
significant further investigation ensued into any of the individuals involved in this smuggling ring
or incident, even though the last time this happened, the immigrants confessed to paying off a
smuggler with suspected connections to an international smuggling operation.
7. Specifically, on the day of the December Incident, City officials learned of the
smuggling investigation, including Chief McManus, then-City Manager Sheryl Sculley, and
current City Manager Erik Walsh. Once they did, those officials coordinated with Catholic
Charities and RAICES—a San Antonio-based immigration advocacy group that has contracted to
provide deportation defense to “residents” of San Antonio—about the discovery and asked them
to assist in order to thwart federal law enforcement officers.
8. Line-level police officers originally began coordinating with immigration officials,
until command-level SAPD officers and executive-level City officials repeatedly directed them to
keep immigration officials away.
9. For instance, Chief McManus personally drove to the scene of the December
Incident and took control of the investigation. Before Chief McManus arrived, line-level police
officers had been in communication with immigration officials and were asked by those
immigration officials to detain, separate, and not question the suspected illegal immigrants at the
scene until immigration agents could arrive. But Chief McManus arrived at the scene of the
December Incident, and, at his direction, Chief McManus ended the cooperation and directed his
officers to handle the case—a human smuggling case with a federal immigration nexus—only “at
the state level.”

10. While still at the scene, Chief McManus received calls and texts from City Manager
Sherly Sculley explaining that Mayor Ron Nirenberg “does not want ICE [Immigration and
Customs Enforcement] called” about the December Incident.
11. Chief McManus issued that command to subordinates at the scene and explicitly
directed officers that, as to the December 23, 2017 scene: “We are not involving ICE [Immigration
and Customs Enforcement] in this investigation.”
12. McManus personally called the Chief Executive Officer of RAICES, an
immigration attorney, to come to the scene, and he arrived at the scene at or near the same time as
Chief McManus. He spoke with Chief McManus at the scene and also assured, on video, some of
the suspected illegal immigrants found in the trailer at the scene that “the police is [sic]
protecting—protecting all of you from immigration.”
13. As McManus stood with him, the RAICES representative assured other
immigrants, again on videotape, that the SAPD “right now are protecting all of you” in the same
way and that the SAPD “doesn’t work with Immigration.” The RAICES representative also
relayed to some of the suspected illegal immigrants that “[Chief McManus] told Immigration that
Immigration has nothing to do with this case . . . .”
14. Meanwhile, Chief McManus directed his subordinates to transport the 12
suspected illegal immigrants to SAPD Headquarters. Officers at SAPD Headquarters read the
illegal immigrants their rights and interviewed them. The SAPD sergeant overseeing the unit
handling the December Incident believed that the suspected illegal immigrants were “in custody
for violating federal immigration law” and that “they were not free to leave.” The sergeant later
learned that the same RAICES representative whom City officials notified to assist the suspected

illegal immigrants at the scene, arrived at SAPD Headquarters and began telling the detectives that
“C.O.P. [Chief McManus] said we were releasing them all [the suspected illegal immigrants].”
15. After hearing that news, the sergeant in charge requested clarification from his
chain of command. The sergeant told his commanding officer—a deputy chief—that he “needed
an order to release the smuggled individuals, if not [he] was going to coordinate with INS
[immigration officials] to take custody of the individuals [the suspected illegal immigrants].” After
the sergeant’s commanding officer conferred with SAPD command—including the assistant chief
and Chief McManus—the commanding officer returned to the sergeant a simple text: “I have been
directed to have Sergeant Cline release the smuggled individuals from the scene.”
16. As the events of December 23, 2017 unfolded, a Homeland Security Investigations
agent arrived at the scene. The Chief informed the agent that the investigation would be handled
“at the state level” and informed the agent that federal agents were barred from even being allowed
to “assist” with the investigation, as McManus says again on video at the scene.
17. Instead, McManus directed the agent to cover his badge to avoid frightening the
suspected illegal immigrants on the scene and refused to allow the agent to personally interview
any of the suspected illegal immigrants.
18. Notably, the agent again directly requested custody of the suspected illegal
immigrants from the sergeant overseeing the unit handling the December Incident at SAPD
Headquarters, but by then, the sergeant had received the text order from his chain of command, a
text that the sergeant showed the agent as the sergeant explained he had to follow orders and could
not turn over custody of the suspected illegal immigrants to the agent.

19. Instead, the sergeant released the suspected illegal immigrants to RAICES and
Catholic Charities who then transported them from headquarters and set up temporary housing
and additional travel arrangements for the immigrants. Because SAPD spirited the suspected
illegal immigrants into the custody of non-profit groups whose core missions include shielding
illegal immigrants from immigration authorities, instead of federal immigration officials, the
prosecution of the smuggler, and the 12 suspected illegal immigrants who paid to be transported
by the smuggler, stalled and resulted in a negligible punishment for the smuggler and no
punishment at all for the suspected illegal immigrants.
20. SAPD could have turned the suspected illegal immigrants over to immigration
officials, as requested, in accordance with SB4, and the suspected illegal immigrants could have
provided additional evidence about this smuggling organization, especially since SAPD has
documents indicating that the very same smuggling ring responsible for the December Incident
was the smuggling ring responsible for a similar incident that occurred in San Antonio in July of
2017, only five months prior. In that incident, this same smuggling ring killed 10 suspected illegal
immigrants.
21. Importantly, the policies and practices used to stymie state and federal smuggling
and immigration investigations during the December Incident—actions that clearly violate SB4—
are still in effect. And Chief McManus still has authority and discretion to handle cases with a
federal immigration nexus in the same way he handled the December Incident.
22. Attorney General Paxton was alerted to these on-going policies and practices that
violate SB4, and he responded by investigating and then filing this lawsuit to uphold state law. To

this day, Plaintiff continues to uncover disturbing truths about Defendants’ false statements and
their concerted efforts to cover up evidence of Defendants’ unlawful and intentional actions.
I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
23. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this case under Level 3 of Texas Rule of
Civil Procedure 190.4 and affirmatively pleads that this case is not governed by the expedited-
actions process in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 169 because the relief sought includes non-
monetary injunctive relief, and the claims for monetary relief—including penalties—exceeds
$100,000.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. The Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus and/or injunction to require
McManus’s and Sculley’s compliance with section 752.053 of the Texas Government Code.
Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 24.011, 752.053, .055.
25. The Court has jurisdiction to assess civil penalties, costs, and fees against
Defendants pursuant to sections 752.056 and 402.006 of the Government Code. Id. §§
402.006(c),(e), 752.056.
26. Venue is proper in Travis County pursuant to section 752.055 of the Government
Code because an action to enforce SB4 may be brought in a district court in Travis County. Id. §
752.055(b).
III. PARTIES
27. Plaintiff Ken Paxton is the Attorney General of Texas. Section 752.055 of the
Government Code charges him with enforcement of SB4. Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.055.

28. Defendant William McManus is the Chief of the San Antonio Police Department
and is the director of that department for the City of San Antonio. San Antonio, Tex., Charter art.
5, § 57.
29. Defendant City of San Antonio is a body politic and a home rule municipality in
Bexar County, Texas. San Antonio Police Department (“SAPD”) is one of the City’s
departments. San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. 5, § 50. SAPD officers possess all the powers
and authority given to them as peace officers under the laws of Texas and the City’s Charter. Id.
§ 58. The City is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures of SAPD. Id. § 50.
The City has the power to sue and be sued. San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. 1, § 3.
30. Defendant Erik Walsh is the City Manager for the City of San Antonio and is
responsible for enforcing all laws and ordinances and exercising administrative supervision and
control over all departments, including SAPD. Id. §§ 46, 51. Defendant Walsh was the Deputy
City Manager supervising SAPD as of December 23, 2017, before succeeding Sheryl Sculley, the
former City Manager, as City Manager.
31. Defendants McManus, the City, and Walsh are local entities that are subject to
mandamus, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and fees for a violation of section 752.053 of the
Government Code. Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 402.006, 752.051(5), .055, .056.
32. All Defendants were served with civil process and entered an appearance through
counsel on January 7, 2019.

IV. SENATE BILL 4
33. The Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 4 (“SB4”) during the 2017 regular
session. It went into effect September 1, 2017. 1 Act of May 3, 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 4,
§ 1.01, 2017 Tex. Gen. Laws 7.
34. SB4 applies to “local entities,” which it defines, in relevant part, as “the governing
body of a municipality” and “an officer or employee of or a division, department, or other body
that is part of a municipality, county, or special district or authority, including a sheriff, municipal
police department, municipal attorney, or county attorney. . . .” Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.051(5).
35. Among other things, SB 4 prohibits local entities, like McManus, SAPD, the City,
and Walsh, from adopting or enforcing policies, patterns, or practices that prohibit or materially
limit the enforcement of immigration laws. Id. § 752.053(a)(1–2). This section also prohibits
local entities, like McManus, SAPD, the City, and Walsh, from prohibiting or materially limiting a
police officer from assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as reasonable or
necessary, including providing enforcement assistance. Id. § 752.053(b)(3).
36. Any citizen residing in the jurisdiction of a local entity may file a complaint with the
Attorney General asserting a violation of section 752.053. Id. § 752.055(a).
37. If the Attorney General determines the complaint is valid, he may file a petition
seeking appropriate equitable relief to compel compliance with section 752.053. Id. § 752.055(b).
38. The Attorney General may also seek civil penalties of $1,000 to $1,500 for the first
violation of section 752.053, and $25,000 to $25,500 for each subsequent violation of section
1 Federal litigation over SB4 resulted in the Fifth Circuit upholding all portions of the law
relevant to this lawsuit, City of El Cenizo v. Texas, 890 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2018).

752.053. Id. § 752.056(a). Each day of a continuing violation of section 752.053 constitutes a
separate violation for the civil penalty. Id. § 752.056(b).
39. A local entity is liable for civil penalties, fees, and costs if it is found to be in violation
of section 752.053. Id. §§ 402.006, 752.056. The court that hears an action brought under
section 752.055 against a local police department or police chief “shall determine the amount of
the civil penalty under this section.” Id. § 752.056(c).
40. SB4 waives governmental immunity for a local entity. Id. § 752.056(e).
V. DEFINED TERMS
41. SAPD is a “local entity” as defined by SB4. Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.051(5).
42. Chief McManus is a “local entity” as defined by SB4. Id.
43. The City is a “local entity” as defined by SB4. Id.
44. City Manager Sculley was a “local entity” as defined by SB4 at the time of the
events described herein. Id.
45. City Manager Walsh is a “local entity” as defined by SB4. Id.
46. Chief McManus is the policymaker for SAPD, which is a department of the City.
VI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
47. Since at least 2015, the issue of “sanctuary cities” refusing to cooperate with federal
immigration authorities has been a matter of widespread public concern. In response, state and
federal policymakers took various actions. Congress held hearings questioning these policies, 2
2 Sanctuary Cities: A Threat to Public Safety: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigration and
Border Sec. of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong., 1st Sess. (2015), https://perma.cc/847D-
5E4U.

President Obama threatened the withdrawal of Justice Assistance Grants from local law
enforcement that created sanctuary cities, 3 and President Trump declared sanctuary cities “have
caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” 4
48. The Texas Legislature responded to the national and local debate by enacting
Senate Bill 4 to prohibit sanctuary city policies and practices throughout Texas. Act of May 3,
2017, 85th Leg., R.S., ch. 4, § 1.01, 2017 Tex. Gen. Laws 7 (codified at Tex. Gov’t Code §§
752.051–.057). SB4 prohibits local entities, including local police departments, from adopting,
enforcing, or endorsing policies, patterns, or practices that prohibit or materially limit the
enforcement of immigration laws. Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(a)(1–2). SB4 also prohibits local law
enforcement from prohibiting or materially limiting one of its officers from assisting or cooperating
with a federal immigration officer as reasonable or necessary, including providing enforcement
assistance. Id. § 752.053(b)(3).
49. In July 2017, the United States Attorney General added conditions to grants
designed to prohibit “sanctuary policies” which the United States Attorney General explained,
“make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens
who have committed crimes[.]” In fact, “sanctuary policies” further the interests of smugglers
and transnational criminal cartels, who treat human beings as objects.
50. In his warning to local governments, the United States Attorney General called out
exactly one single jurisdiction in the United States by name as an example of the problem caused by
“sanctuary cities”: San Antonio. “These policies also encourage illegal immigration and even
3 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Guidance Regarding Compliance with 8 U.S.C.
§ 1373, at 2 (July 7, 2016), https://perma.cc/9ST2-GG4W.
4 Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8,799, 8,799 (Jan. 30, 2017).

human trafficking by perpetuating the lie that in certain cities, illegal aliens can live outside the law.
This can have tragic consequences, like the 10 deaths we saw in San Antonio this weekend.”
51. In July 2017, a group of smugglers—either part of or working with a known
transnational drug cartel, according to the federal criminal complaint—transported immigrants in
the back of a semi-trailer to San Antonio, allowing more than a hundred human beings to endure
extreme heat exposure and asphyxiation. Dozens were hospitalized and ten illegal aliens died.
52. In response, federal agents took custody of several illegal aliens involved,
interviewed them, investigated events, and then secured a life sentence against the driver of the
truck.
53. Federal authorities continued investigating and busted a related stash house of
illegal immigrants in Laredo, bringing at least one other federal indictment thus far. Federal law
enforcement authorities sought primarily to criminally punish any organization capable of such
inhumane treatment.
54. But the City took a different approach.
Citizen Complaints about December 23, 2017
55. Beginning in January 2018, the Attorney General began receiving citizen complaints
about a December 23, 2017 incident involving SAPD, Chief McManus, and approximately a dozen
suspected aliens found in the back of a trailer in the City of San Antonio.
56. The sworn citizen complaints alleged defendants violated section 752.053 of the
Texas Government Code during the December 23, 2017 incident.5
5. The sworn citizen complaints, dated February 6, 2018, February 13, 2018, and June 28, 2018, alleged
defendants violated section 752.053 of the Texas Government Code during the December 23, 2017
incident.

57. Based upon the sworn complaints, the Attorney General began an investigation into
the matter and gathered the facts pleaded herein.
City Alters Policies to Thwart Federal Efforts Despite New State Law
58. San Antonio authorities responded to the ten homicides due to smuggling in July
2017 and implemented policies to thwart future federal law-enforcement efforts.
59. Mayor Ron Nirenberg, then-Deputy City Manager Walsh, the City of San Antonio,
and Chief McManus changed San Antonio’s policing policy on smuggling cases from one
respecting federal law enforcement as the “sole handling authority” for smuggling cases to a
practice of permitting the Chief to unilaterally declare at crime scenes that smuggling cases would
be handled solely “at the state level.”
60. The City and City leaders also focused their concern and resources on the State
Legislature’s passage of Senate Bill 4 and on preventing the federal deportation of individuals
found in smuggling events like the one in July 2017 with ten homicides, even though detaining
witnesses was necessary to secure lifelong convictions against human smugglers who work with
transnational drug cartels and kill immigrants.
61. Towards those efforts, the City solicited funds for “deportation and removal
defense” services to thwart all federal efforts to detain individuals, even when individuals are
apprehended by police officers for committing crimes against other residents. The City proclaimed
that “Senate Bill 4” and ICE detention facilities in the area, listing them by name, created an
“urgent need” for funding to thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts.
62. On August 31, 2017, the day before Senate Bill 4 took effect, the City adopted
Ordinance 2017-08-31-0614, which authorized former Defendant Sculley to negotiate and execute

contracts for $250,000 in legal services from several organizations, including the same activist
immigration law firm called to the scene in this case. Of this amount, the City directed former
Defendant Sculley to spend $200,000 on services to immigrants and suspected aliens, which
includes helping these individuals navigate federal immigration laws, among other things.
According to Ordinance 2017-08-31-0614, $100,000 of the funding came from a grant from Vera
Institute of Justice SAFE (Safety and Fairness for Everyone) Cities Network, an organization based
in New York City that promotes representation of immigrants in removal defense.
63. As Senate Bill 4 went into effect, the City received funding to oppose federal law-
enforcement efforts, passed an ordinance enshrining all of this as City policy, and contracted with
activist legal organizations to provide “Immigration – Removal (Deportation) Defense” services.
64. The City even requires the activist groups to represent illegal immigrants, giving
sole priority to those who are actively detained—regardless of whether they are detained, for
instance, for committing crimes against other residents in the City.
65. At its public meeting about the matter, the City tried initially to pass this ordinance
on a consent agenda, but then, faced with questions, City staff omitted any mention of removal
defense, deportation defense, or soliciting funds to thwart federal authorities, despite direct
questions by a councilmember about what, exactly, the City was funding here.
66. Rather than help federal authorities, the City took money at the behest of the very
organization who demanded that the City and Chief McManus specifically halt any cooperation
with federal immigration enforcement agents. It then handed funds back to them to fight federal
enforcement efforts.

67. In those contracts, the City explicitly requires that those firms must, per the City,
prioritize “those who are detained,” regardless of whether the person is detained as part of a
smuggling operation, for a criminal action against another San Antonio resident, such as spousal
abuse, or even as a human smuggler. Despite the ten July 2017 homicides, the City created a policy
only months afterward where the City requires its contractors to provide free, taxpayer-funded
legal counsel even to known felons under current prosecution, such as human smugglers
themselves.
68. In addition, as a result of Ordinance 2017-08-31-0614 (“Ordinance”) and the
December 23, 2017 incident described herein, SAPD developed a Communication Protocol for
Human Smuggling or Trafficking Incidents. Part of that Protocol requires Chief McManus’s
office to notify immigration activist groups and legal groups of any smuggling or trafficking incident
so that these agencies can provide translation services, aid, and legal services to suspected felons
(suspected illegal aliens).
Receiving Pressure From Activists, City Enshrines Policies to Prevent Federal Agents from
Capturing Illegal Aliens
69. Simultaneously, the City faced pressure from activists to ensure the release of
detained illegal aliens in light of the July 2017 deaths. Considering that pressure, City leaders,
including Police Chief McManus, met with immigration-defense groups who oppose federal law-
enforcement efforts about how to ensure that federal authorities did not deport or remove
individuals apprehended in the midst of a smuggling operation.
70. According to Chief McManus, City officials “made an agreement” to let activist
groups handle smuggling incidents—which further displaced the City’s prior policy of cooperating
with federal agents.

71. The City also formally adopted its changed policy and practice: General Manual
Procedure 618 – Racial/Bias Profiling/Immigration Policy, effective September 1, 2017. That
policy took effect the day that SB 4 took effect throughout Texas.
72. Despite Senate Bill 4, McManus and the City also released a new written policy
that, among other things, bans police officers from handing persons over to ICE.
73. SAPD has a written policy of prohibiting contact with federal immigration
authorities when it encounters suspected aliens. It is SAPD’s policy, codified in SAPD General
Manual Procedure 618.11 Subpart A, that “[o]fficers will not refer persons to Immigration and
Customs Enforcement unless the person has a federal deportation warrant.”
74. Thus, SAPD policy effectively bars officers from ever referring an illegal immigrant
to federal authorities without a federal warrant first. In practice, SAPD policy also categorically
bars police officers from ever referring a first-time illegal border crosser to ICE.
75. In practice, an illegal alien who just crossed the border illegally has intentionally
evaded federal authorities and would not yet have received a federal deportation warrant.
76. The City’s policy prohibits SAPD officers from transferring suspected aliens to
federal immigration officers, absent federal officials providing proof of a federal deportation
warrant. But not all aliens unlawfully present in the United States are subject to deportation
warrants. Yet the federal government has an obligation to apprehend those individuals, whether or
not a warrant exists already.
77. Similarly, the City policy creates a Catch-22 that discourages SAPD officers from
contacting or referring individuals to ICE. SAPD officers need the flexibility to contact ICE to get
threshold information on warrants and immigration history to determine whether ICE should be

involved, but SAPD policy prevents SAPD officers from initiating that contact, at the risk of
violating policy and subjecting themselves to discipline.
78. Yet, meanwhile, SAPD and the City enforce a policy of requiring SAPD officers to
contact outside immigration activist groups to assist suspected aliens (and suspected felons) at
suspected crime scenes.
79. The current police policy and practice also bars SAPD officers from inquiring into
immigration status unless necessary to investigate an offense or provide visa information.
Furthermore, the current policy and practice announced, for the first time, that immigration issues
are not a priority to the department—further signaling to officers to ignore them at all times or face
potential discipline.
McManus and the City Operate the Policy: They Ignore Federal Warnings and Prevent Federal
Agents From Prosecuting the Same Smugglers and Transnational Drug Organizations Who Had
Already Killed Ten Immigrants in the City
80. The City and City leadership were undaunted by the United States Attorney
General’s warning or Texas law, and they carried out their new policy and agreements. The City
and Chief McManus violated the mandates of Senate Bill 4 by prohibiting and materially limiting
the enforcement of immigration laws as well as limiting and even explicitly prohibiting cooperation
with federal immigration officials. This, by design, guaranteed that federal officials were unable
to apprehend the illegal immigrants or proceed with any federal charges, even against known
smugglers.
81. Specifically, on December 23, 2017, Chief McManus and City officials, including
Mayor Nirenberg, confronted a new smuggling incident.

82. At approximately 12:03 p.m. that day, SAPD received a call about a suspicious
eighteen-wheeler containing multiple occupants in its trailer.
83. SAPD declined to respond to the call about an alleged human smuggling incident;
however, an SAPD officer was then physically flagged down by a citizen reporting a tractor-trailer
filled with suspected illegal aliens who appeared to be part of a smuggling operation and were being
unloaded from a trailer and into waiting vehicles.
84. Upon arrival, the SAPD patrol officer found twelve suspected aliens, ten males and
two females, including one 16-year-old minor.
85. Eventually, SAPD officers on scene notified U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”), in accordance with past practice,
and federal authorities deployed Special Agent Brian Johnson to the scene. Unlike many other
federal agents, Agent Johnson had previously worked with SAPD doing forensic analysis for SAPD
Special Victims Unit (“SVU”) and had a desk and badge access to SAPD headquarters.
86. In addition to Agent Johnson, federal agents also simultaneously deployed other
agents to ICE’s San Antonio Office to receive the illegal immigrants and investigate the offenses.
HSI began its efforts to take custody of the suspected aliens.
87. Importantly, federal agents also informed SAPD at that time that ICE would send
Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) transports for the illegal aliens in the trailer to
take custody of them. ERO would take the illegal aliens back to HSI. Johnson informed SAPD that
HSI would take custody of the suspected aliens.

88. After speaking to the SAPD officer, Special Agent Johnson called ERO and told
them to send a transport bus to pick up the suspected aliens at the scene. Johnson also called his
supervisor, who gathered agents at ERO who were ready to receive the suspected aliens.
89. Federal agents also requested that SAPD refrain from questioning the illegal aliens
until federal agents questioned them, and SAPD officers began complying with that request,
advising other officers that HSI wanted the people separated for questioning, although that
cooperation would quickly end once Chief McManus arrived.
90. In response, SAPD officers on scene offered to federal agents that SAPD would
transport the illegal immigrants to a federal facility—which the officers all anticipated and are seen
on video discussing—and the federal agent in charge agreed.
91. Later, SAPD’s sergeant on scene then asked the federal agent if SAPD could take
the illegal immigrants to headquarters, where ICE could meet them to pick up the illegal aliens.
Federal agents agreed with that plan.
92. As a result, Agent Johnson drove directly to SAPD headquarters rather than to the
scene. And SAPD officers initially assumed and agreed, as is customary, that the case would be
HSI’s.
93. After all, SAPD lacked the ability to investigate and prosecute across the multiple
jurisdictions where the smuggling took place or where the network was located, and SAPD likewise
lacked the ability to prosecute the federal immigration crimes. For all of those reasons, SAPD
would, by necessity, have to cooperate with federal authorities.

94. But Chief McManus soon arrived and SAPD then reneged on its promised
cooperation as a result of McManus’s new direct orders. SAPD’s cooperation with federal
authorities then ceased.
McManus and City Leaders Scramble to Thwart Federal Enforcement Efforts
95. Meanwhile, McManus and City leaders had recognized the immediate similarities
between this new smuggling event and the July 2017 smuggling incident where ten immigrants
were killed: Deputy City Manager Walsh called McManus himself at home, and shortly afterwards,
McManus arrived on scene, on his day off, and took command while Mayor Nirenberg conferred
with his staff about whether to go in person as well.
96. Despite Senate Bill 4 or federal law, however, McManus and City leaders, including
Mayor Nirenberg, deliberately ensured this time that federal authorities were prevented from taking
custody of anyone at the incident.
97. City leaders immediately began calling police command to find out “what’s going
to happen to the 20 [illegal immigrants from the trailer].”
98. Soon after, the City Manager personally told SAPD Chief William McManus and
then advised Deputy City Manager Walsh that “the Mayor does not want ICE called.”
99. By contrast, under Texas law, local governments are specifically prohibited from
directing their own officers not to share immigration-related information with federal authorities.
Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(b)(2).
100. Rather than comply with state law, the City called and enlisted others to scramble
immigration defense attorneys and activist transports to the scene. In fact, the City Manager
scrambled others to get there immediately after she said they do not want ICE there.

101. McManus conferred with City leaders and they decided to honor the new unlawful
2017 policy of non-cooperation with federal agents, including an agreement to provide custody of
the illegal immigrants to immigration-defense groups rather than federal agents.
102. Pursuant to City policy, McManus called an attorney from an immigrant legal
activist organization and requested his presence at the scene to help suspected aliens related to
their federal immigration crimes.
103. Mayor Nirenberg spoke with Chief McManus and then assured his political staffers
that McManus’s “explicit instruction is that no one should be remanded to DHS.”
104. Nirenberg then stated that he had also personally contacted immigration-defense
groups to send them to the scene.
City Leaders and McManus Guarantee Protection From Federal Agents
105. McManus and City leaders then guaranteed the individuals from the scene that they
would avoid federal custody, outright rejecting federal requests for the illegal aliens.
106. Mayor Nirenberg himself acknowledged the City’s goal: to prevent ICE agents from
taking custody of individuals. The illegal immigrants evaded federal agents due to Chief
McManus’s actions and Nirenberg’s efforts. And Nirenberg then thanked his political staffer for
giving “families a Christmas gift that can never be replaced” by keeping them out of ICE custody.
107. Initially, SAPD officers promised federal agents that they would transport the
immigrants to federal agents, taking them directly to ICE’s San Antonio facility. SAPD officers
were instructed by their supervisor to write the incident up as a federal smuggling case and began
doing so. SAPD officers then planned to take the immigrants to SAPD Headquarters, where ICE
agents would meet them to take the immigrants.

108. SAPD communications reveal that SAPD officers and command staff knew federal
agents were en route and that those officials were sending transports, dispatching additional agents
to their federal headquarters, and, in the words of the officer coordinating for the Chief at the
scene, federal authorities had assigned a federal agent as “lead on the Copeland case.”
109. Federal agents repeatedly requested to take the immigrants, take the case, and
investigate. But those requests were soon ignored and rejected.
110. One SAPD officer predicted this change of course upon hearing that McManus was
en route, stating: “Chief is going to show up and be like, ‘this is a sanctuary city, guys, see you
later.’” Another officer quipped in response, mimicking Chief McManus: “‘Hey guys, go ahead
and let them walk.’” Those predictions were prescient. In fact, shortly thereafter, McManus
arrived on the scene and soon after that, those same officers learned that McManus had in fact
directed that the immigrants should be released—on his orders.
111. Ignoring federal agents, McManus and the City instead promised activist
immigration groups custody of the illegal immigrants. These activist groups advised they were
“sending people” and could “take them”. At the scene, the immigrants themselves were promised
that they would be released, even though a federal agent had already arrived for them.
112. Police officers were astounded by this turn of events as they learned that the
immigrants were being released, though federal agents had actively sought custody of the
immigrants. As officers learned that McManus was releasing the immigrants to the streets, one
immediately responded: “He can’t do that.”

113. Another officer, asked whether McManus was “running for Mayor,” while another
declared that “we’re the f***ing police,” only to be rebutted by a third officer: “No we’re not:
we’re Amnesty International.”
114. In order to stop their own officers, the City, and McManus specifically, issued
direct orders to his chain of command and to detectives on scene barring cooperation with federal
agents.
115. Mayor Nirenberg himself approved, advising his staff that McManus gave “explicit
instruction that no one should be remanded to DHS . . . .”
116. Mayor Nirenberg also confirmed to his political staff that he was personally
arranging for immigration defense groups to insert themselves into the ongoing crime scene.
117. In fact, rather than await a call back, Nirenberg and numerous city staff, including
McManus, were repeatedly calling the immigration activist groups in order to get them to the scene
as soon as possible.
118. The City could have easily cooperated with federal law-enforcement authorities.
Instead, the City’s political leadership, including Police Chief William McManus, directly
intervened to prevent cooperation. The illegal immigrants were loaded into police transports and
immediately provided with immigration defense counsel, before being interviewed by SAPD’s own
detectives.
119. Yet that is precisely what Mayor Nirenberg and his political staff called for: he and
his political staff advised “making sure that [an immigration-defense attorneys’ group] and legal
advocates have first contact before homeland security is involved,” although there was already an active
federal investigation with federal investigators deployed.

120. Mayor Nirenberg, in a text message, told the City Manager how to handle it more
succinctly: “Just spoke to Sheryl [Sculley, City Manager]. I reaffirmed that our commitment was
to work with the legal advocates first before ICE.”
While Thwarting Federal Agents, the City and McManus Assured Immigrants of Protection from
Federal Authorities
121. A federal agent had been assigned to investigate and lead the case, and SAPD had
offered him to transport the immigrants directly to a federal facility. Instead, he was directed by
SAPD to the wrong location. Meanwhile, McManus arrived on scene and placed calls to outside
groups trying to get them there first—and he succeeded. The agent arrived at the location that
SAPD sent him to and made calls to SAPD officers until he learned that he had been directed to the
wrong place by SAPD.
122. The federal agent then drove from where SAPD sent him to the scene, and,
according to commanding officers’ own testimony, he arrived only to be further stalled outside the
scene by police officers acting at McManus’s direction.
123. The federal agent nonetheless reiterated to SAPD detectives that federal authorities
were taking the cases.
124. Instead, McManus executed the City’s policy of helping illegal immigrants evade
federal law enforcement agencies. McManus sent the federal agent away from the scene. And
McManus’s own command staff reported that “Chief ran off the feds.” Further, Chief McManus
directed an officer to bring an immigration defense attorney—the RAICES representative—to the
detained illegal immigrants at the scene to speak to and advise the illegal immigrants.
125. SAPD recorded hours of video footage from the scene of the December 2017
Incident on their body cameras, including conversations between the RAICES representative and

the detained illegal immigrants. During his conversations, the RAICES representative clarified
exactly what is happening at the scene, confirming both what federal agents stated and what
McManus later denied: the RAICES representative assures the immigrants in the police wagon
that the police are specifically protecting them from immigration.
126. Meanwhile, McManus told the federal agent that he did not want federal agents
involved at all and made it clear that a federal agent should not be present.
127. McManus then directed the federal agent to cover up his badge as he walked away,
in order to avoid scaring the immigrants. SAPD officers are seen on tape laughing at the federal
agent in response.
128. Despite this, HSI Agent Johnson once again asked SAPD officers to coordinate with
ERO—as SAPD had already promised to do—for HSI to take custody of the illegal aliens. SAPD
declined.
129. McManus then informed the detectives to handle the investigation only at the state
level and that, according to the police report, “the H.S.I. agents were not to be involved in the
case.”
130. McManus’s actions contradicted standard police practice of using sworn law-
enforcement officers to conduct law-enforcement investigations. Yet McManus himself personally
utilized the RAICES representative, immigration-defense attorney, for that very purpose.
131. In fact, McManus had to repeatedly issue direct orders throughout the day in order
to halt cooperation with federal agents and get his officers to comply with orders to help illegal
immigrants evade federal custody.

132. McManus himself resisted cooperation with the federal agent on the scene,
sending him away, and moments later McManus picks up his phone and emphatically states “We
are NOT involving ICE in this investigation.” McManus’s actions were precisely the conduct that
the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 4 to prevent.
133. At the same time, HSI Agent Johnson’s supervisor had already deployed other
federal agents to federal offices to await the arrival of the illegal immigrants. Those agents were
awaiting the immigrants as promised by SAPD but then later learned that McManus had
circumvented Agent Johnson and federal immigration officials altogether.
134. As a result, the federal agent supervising the federal operation called police officials
seeking cooperation. He asked a police commander why McManus “ran off the Feds,” as the
SAPD commander documented it, and chased agent Johnson away from the scene. An SAPD
commander told the supervisor that he could not discuss the matter and referred Johnson’s
supervisor directly to Chief McManus—who then intentionally ignored federal agents until after
the illegal immigrants were released.
135. The federal supervising agent told the SAPD officer that HSI would take the
criminal case and process the suspected aliens.
136. But police commanders did not inform him that, before the federal agent and
supervisor even called them, McManus’s commanders had already confirmed to one another that,
per Chief McManus, “we aren[‘]t involving the Feds.” Thus, the federal agents were excluded
from SAPD’s efforts.
137. In fact, SAPD commanders already described officers, detectives, and supervisors
as “in the way” because “they had already been coordinating with Homeland and ICE.”

138. This scheme by City officials continued—and it would require yet more orders.
McManus walked over to the immigration defense attorney as he approached another group of the
immigrants and offered suggestions. Shortly after his discussion with McManus, the immigration
attorney explained to a second group of immigrants from the trailer that “this is a police that helps
immigrants,” that “you all are going to get out of here,” because “the police right now are
protecting all of you” with reference to “Immigration.” He assured them of that despite federal
requests during the December Incident, and went so far as to inform the illegal immigrants that
Chief McManus “doesn’t work with immigration” and “told immigration that immigration does
not have anything to do with this case . . . .”
139. The attorney advised the immigrants that McManus had already sent immigration
away and reassures them that the police are protecting them from immigration authorities. And, yet
again, that is precisely what McManus did next.
City Leaders and McManus Outsource Normal Police Investigation to Immigration Activists
Before Helping Immigrants Avoid Federal Custody
140. McManus chased away the federal agent, then proceeded to police headquarters
with the illegal immigrants in police wagons. They were all given private consultations with the
activist immigration attorney in police offices before speaking to any detectives, and, according to
police records, the activist attorney ran around a secure portion of police headquarters ensuring
that HSI would not be allowed to ask any illegal immigrant any questions, as documented in police
reports.
141. Instead, the illegal immigrants were briefly interviewed by SAPD personnel who
are, according to their own statements to date, unfamiliar with smuggling investigations. An SAPD

officer later informed the Office of the Attorney General that there were instructions from
command not to run the immigrants’ information through criminal-history databases or verify it.
142. Prior to releasing the suspected aliens, neither McManus nor SAPD ran the
suspected aliens’ criminal history through criminal databases such as the National Crime
Information Center ("NCIC") to determine whether they had any criminal history or outstanding
warrants. Neither McManus nor SAPD asked or allowed HSI to run the suspected aliens' names
through the ICE database to determine whether they were lawfully present in the United States or
had any pending deportation warrants. Neither McManus nor SAPD contacted Texas Child
Protective Services to investigate the safety of a 16-year-old minor who was among those found in
the trailer. And despite repeated requests, McManus refused to allow HSI Special Agent Johnson
to speak to, investigate, or transport the suspected aliens to HSI for processing.
143. In fact, none of the officers, including the Chief, ever contacted Child Protective
Services regarding the minor found in the back of a trailer in the midst of a transnational smuggling
operation. Nor did officers ascertain who the minor’s guardian was. Instead, at McManus’s
request, SAPD ushered the minor—who was in the midst of a smuggling operation in a city where
the minor did not live—into another van or hotel to continue traveling alone in a foreign country.
144. That day, various SAPD officers questioned the immigrants and asked them for
information, but not a single officer obtained any verifiable contact information for a single one of
them—even though, as Bexar County District Attorney LaHood indicated, these immigrants were
witnesses to a criminal case, and their presence and cooperation was absolutely necessary to
adequately investigate and prosecute the case.

145. The suspected aliens’ verified contact information and current locations are
currently unknown.
146. Yet Mayor Nirenberg and City leaders likewise knew that this information would
be particularly relevant, and they also knew that the police refused to collect this information, even
though police would normally collect such information from witnesses—which meant that any
criminal history could be kept out of the public eye, and witnesses could not be apprehended.
147. Instead, City leaders apparently knew while the illegal immigrants were still in
custody that the police themselves lacked this information and were directed not to gather it. So,
Nirenberg and City leaders instead specifically asked the activist immigration attorney to provide
them with the criminal history on the illegal immigrants.
148. Yet some of the City’s own elected leadership recognized the problems inherent in
law enforcement refusing to enforce state laws or check into what types of laws were being violated
prior to the immigrants’ hasty release. One councilman later stated, “[t]hese people paid large
sums of money to evade immigration laws. I don’t consider them to be victims if they paid large
sums of money . . . my biggest concern is we should have vetted these people before releasing
them.”
Federal Agents Continue Pursuing the Illegal Immigrants While McManus Directly Orders Police
to Thwart Federal Agents
149. Meanwhile, activist organizations arrived at the police station, per the Chief’s
request, and repeatedly called the supervising sergeant to seek immediate release of the illegal
immigrants.

150. Yet Homeland Security Investigations had dispatched the one federal agent, Agent
Johnson, who worked with a trafficking task force on the floor where the immigrants were being
interviewed by police with badge access to the building.
151. Unwilling to relent, Agent Johnson persisted in securing the illegal aliens, literally
going where no other federal officers would have been able to access, in order to investigate human
smuggling, federal immigration crimes, and transnational criminal organizations.
152. Agent Johnson arrived and found the Sergeant in charge who was standing with
Chief McManus. Agent Johnson once again sought to be involved, and was once again dismissed
by Chief McManus, who was personally directing a single investigation within that police unit.
153. Yet Agent Johnson nonetheless again requested that SAPD allow ICE to process
the illegal aliens, rather than release them onto the streets without any verification or ability to find
them for purposes of potential prosecution. They had, after all, admitted to paying off a
transnational criminal organization and had information about stash houses and smugglers.
154. Agent Johnson offered some additional suggestions to SAPD regarding
investigations of this type and again gave officers information to ensure that they would release the
immigrants to federal authorities.
155. SAPD detectives began interviewing the illegal immigrants and, at the direction of
their supervisor, an SAPD Sergeant, SAPD officers began reading Miranda rights to the detained
individuals since they admitted that they had committed federal immigration crimes—crimes that
City authorities cannot prosecute.
156. The SAPD Sergeant in charge of the detectives planned to coordinate with ICE to
release the illegal aliens to ICE, per the federal request.

157. But, as soon as he did, officers told him that Chief McManus had already reached
an agreement with the activist groups to release the illegal aliens. The activist attorney insisted
upon releasing the illegal aliens rather than handing them over to federal agents—even though a
federal agent was standing there at headquarters waiting for them.
158. The SAPD Sergeant then advised his command of his plan to coordinate with
federal officials unless ordered not to. By his own account, he had read about Senate Bill 4 and was
concerned that they would violate the law if they released the aliens in this situation.
159. SAPD command ordered the sergeant to hold everyone at police headquarters for
an hour while McManus deliberated with City leaders.
160. But ultimately, command staff then directly ordered the sergeant to avoid giving
ICE or federal agents custody of the illegal aliens.
161. Instead, he was ordered to release the illegal aliens to the waiting vans of the activist
organizations.
162. The SAPD Sergeant shortly thereafter reduced his recollection of the events to
writing, anticipating the gravity of the order he had received:
Smuggled individual did not want to talk after they were read their rights. It was my
belief that they were in custody for violating federal immigration law, as a result
they were not free to leave. We were coordinating with H.S. agent Johnson giving
SAPD the authority to hold the smuggled individuals.
3:51 PM: Call DC Muro and requested an order to release the individuals from 18
wheeler after hearing an officer say the “attorney” said the C.O.P. said we were
releasing them all. I advised D.C. Muro I needed an order to release the smuggled
individuals, if not I was going to coordinate with INS to take custody of the
individuals. He advised to hold what I had until he contacted me.
4:50PM: Received a text order from DC Muro: “I have been directed to have
Sergeant Cline release the smuggled individuals from the scene.”

163. McManus and City political leadership had the sergeant hold everyone in place as
they decided whether to go through with their arrangements. City leadership had him hold
everyone in place for an hour while they consulted, before finally relaying the orders to him—he
must release the illegal aliens anyway, despite state law and federal agents.
164. Still, the sergeant insisted upon a written order in order to avoid becoming the “fall
guy,” according to a sergeant in charge of line officers that day, and McManus obliged: his
commanders texted an order to release the immigrants, per McManus, and another telling the
Sergeant that he must follow that order.
SAPD Carries out McManus’s and the Mayor’s Orders, Thwarting Federal Authorities
165. SAPD command staff then relayed the orders down to the sergeant supervising the
detectives from Chief McManus himself: “Per Chief McManus, please have Sergeant [in charge
of detectives] release the smuggled individuals from the scene.” Another supervisor even texted
the sergeant separately to tell him that he must follow the order that he believed was unlawful:
“[Sergeant]. Please follow the direction of the Chief.”
166. The sergeant then informed Agent Johnson that his own command staff were
directly ordering him not to release the immigrants to federal authorities, even though federal
authorities were present.
167. The sergeant, faced with a direct order from the Chief of Police, followed the order:
armed SAPD officers escorted the immigrants out the back of the building and into the activist
group’s custody. At the City’s request, the activist group already had vans waiting outside.

City leaders, Including Nirenberg and McManus, Acted With Specific Intent to Thwart Federal
Agents from Ever Taking Custody
168. From their actions, McManus and City leaders acted intentionally to ensure that
the immigrants avoided federal agents—placing that priority ahead of the police investigation itself
and the concerns of their own supervising officers.
169. Incredibly, from the outset, McManus, Nirenberg, and City leaders even acted with
the stated intent of preventing federal agents from taking custody of illegal immigrants, even after
the illegal immigrants had confessed to federal crimes. Mayor Nirenberg himself directed that
ICE not be called, according to the City Manager, who then herself called Chief McManus himself
to relay that instruction.
170. In addition, the Mayor himself instructed city staff to keep this quiet in order to
help the illegal immigrants abscond from federal authorities: “We should not put out a statement
yet or until asked as media is not yet aware. Once this gets out, it will be more difficult to allow
these folks to get connected with advocates” before federal agents apprehend them.
171. Mayor Nirenberg opined that federal agents making a routine detention of
confessed illegal immigrants—including those who admittedly paid off smugglers or transnational
cartels that have already killed ten people—are somehow violating “due process.” As a result, he
ordered his staff to keep things quiet in order to thwart federal agents from apprehending the illegal
immigrants. Plainly, Mayor Nirenberg was aware that federal agents wanted to apprehend these
people—so he hushed City staff in order to avoid information about the illegal aliens’ whereabouts
becoming public.
172. Following the incident, Mayor Nirenberg reassured his own staff that Chief
McManus will refuse to give anyone to federal agents: “Talked to chief [McManus]. His explicit

instruction is that no one should be remanded to DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. . . .”
He confirmed in the same message that he was personally arranging for others to pick up the
immigrants—before federal agents could get them.
173. Likewise, the Mayor had already reiterated to the City Manager that the City was
committed to working with anti-law-enforcement activist groups “first before ICE.”
174. In fact, City staff continued tracking and updating City leadership about the
whereabouts of the illegal aliens specifically to ensure that they effectively absconded from federal
agents by departing the jurisdiction—and ensuring that the Mayor and City Manager were aware.
175. Mayor Nirenberg also confirmed his intentions when he and his policy staff thanked
one another afterwards for accomplishing Nirenberg’s goal—to prevent federal agents from
apprehending these illegal aliens. “You [have] given 20 families a Christmas gift that can never be
replaced,” Nirenberg told one staffer, who then replied, “Thank you, same here. Wish we could
do the same for the hundreds of others who are suffering and separated . . . .”
Bexar County’s Own Prosecutor in These Cases Condemns City’s Actions: “this makes us a
sanctuary city”
176. McManus talked repeatedly to the City’s political leadership and policy advisors
that day, as demonstrated in phone records alone, but he refused to call the one person whose office
would prosecute the case: the locally-elected Bexar County District Attorney. Instead, McManus
only informed the District Attorney that McManus allegedly wanted the District Attorney to
somehow bring a case under the state smuggling statute—without any witnesses or usable contact
information—after McManus had released everyone.

177. Like the line officers, the District Attorney immediately informed SAPD of the
obvious problem with McManus’s alleged reason for the City’s police actions: “this makes us a
sanctuary city.”
178. The City Manager informed Mayor Nirenberg of the District Attorney’s
statements. According to Mayor Nirenberg, the District Attorney was “angry that we didn’t
involve ice [ICE]” and says that “this makes us a sanctuary city.”
Unwilling to Accept the Consequences, City Leaders Begin Lying and Destroying Evidence
179. Undaunted, City officials failed to heed that input and take any corrective action
since. Instead, by contrast, McManus and City leaders immediately began denying that all of this
happened, contradicting even their own statements to one another and denying things that are
recorded, even on videotape. They plotted how to conceal their actions from the press and ensure
the information related to their orchestrated release of the illegal immigrants never reached the
public.
180. Chief McManus even deleted his own communications about the illegal immigrants
and securing them as witnesses that day. And he did this despite whatever consequences it would
have for prosecuting the smuggler, who sat in jail while McManus deleted his texts and then
disposed of his actual phone device.
181. Thus began a public campaign of denials and misinformation. For instance,
McManus immediately requested that City leadership refrain from making any public comment,
hoping to conceal this from the public.
182. Likewise, as described above, the Mayor himself instructed city staff to not speak
to the press in order to assist the illegal immigrants in avoiding federal authorities.

183. The City, including Nirenberg and McManus, did exactly that: they kept it quiet
until, eventually, days later, word leaked out to the media, presumably from some of the many
officers who found this conduct reprehensible.
184. The City even deliberately refused to notify its own elected leadership. Instead,
Mayor Nirenberg hand-selected a few political allies on the City Council to give advance notice to
them, but City leaders intentionally refrained from notifying all of the City’s councilmembers.
185. Once word leaked out, McManus and the City immediately responded by attacking
the federal agents. McManus criticized federal agents and agencies and attacked the credibility of
a career federal agent, denying that federal agents made requests to take the immigrants or that he
chased a federal agent away from the scene. McManus also mischaracterized his unlawful acts
despite SAPD’s own reports, video evidence at the scene, and texts between City officials that
visually demonstrate efforts to prohibit federal agents from enforcing immigration laws.
186. McManus later claimed that nobody at SAPD restricted HSI from being involved
that day, yet Mayor Nirenberg himself states in writing that McManus himself gave “explicit
instruction” to bar his own officers from allowing any illegal immigrants to be “remanded to
DHS.” Instead, SAPD officers served as armed escorts to ensure that the illegal immigrants
were sent to activists’ waiting vans, under direct orders to refrain from giving them to ICE.
The New Policy Putatively Designed to Further Communications Also Violates SB4
187. Despite the events that occurred on December 23, 2017, police refused to make
any changes to police policy or practice to prevent Chief McManus or other future police chiefs
from continuing to attempt to evade the mandates of SB4. In fact, Nirenberg, McManus, and
Walsh all freely admit that this can happen again today under still-current policy.

188. Instead, the police responded only by issuing a new communications document that
further restricts the discretion of line police officers to ever call federal officials—itself a violation
of Senate Bill 4—thus making future violations harder to detect. Pursuant to Senate Bill 4, it is
unlawful to restrict officers from sharing information with immigration-enforcement authorities,
see Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(b)(2), Yet SAPD’s new policy does exactly that.
189. In fact, the City, including the Mayor, maintain that this event represents standard
City police procedure and protocol. City leaders, including McManus and Nirenberg, repeatedly
reassured City Councilmember Brockhouse, for instance, that SAPD standard procedure was
“followed to the letter,” in Mayor Nirenberg’s words.
190. In other words, the Mayor himself maintained repeatedly that the events of
December 23, 2017, represent the City’s standard pattern and practice, and the communications
protocol issued in the Spring of 2018—rather than fixing the Defendants’ unlawful policies, simply
adds another ongoing violation.
VII. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Prohibiting or Materially Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws on December 23, 2017
191. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the previous paragraphs as if fully restated here.
192. Under SB4, a local entity “may not: (1) adopt[ or] enforce . . . a policy under which
the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.”
Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(a).
193. The City and McManus violated section 752.053 on December 23, 2017, by
prohibiting the enforcement of immigration laws when they failed to turn over the suspected aliens
to ICE or HSI after repeated requests from these agencies to take the suspected aliens into custody
and when they acted to prohibit ICE and HSI from taking custody of the suspected aliens.

194. The City and McManus violated section 752.053 on December 23, 2017, by
materially limiting the enforcement of immigration laws when they failed to turn over the
suspected aliens to ICE or HSI after repeated requests from these agencies to take them into
custody and when they acted to materially limit ICE and HSI from taking custody of the suspected
aliens.
VIII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Prohibiting or Materially Limiting Assistance or Cooperation with Federal Immigration

Officer on December 23, 2017
196. Under SB4, a local entity “may not prohibit or materially limit a person who is a
commissioned peace officer” from “assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as
reasonable or necessary, including providing enforcement assistance . . . .” Tex. Gov’t Code §
752.053(b)(3).
197. On December 23, 2017, the City and McManus prohibited SAPD officers from
assisting or cooperating with ICE, HSI, and HSI Special Agent Johnson in the enforcement of
federal immigration laws.
198. On December 23, 2017, the City and McManus materially limited SAPD officers
from assisting or cooperating with ICE, HSI, and HSI Special Agent Johnson in the enforcement
of federal immigration laws.
IX. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Policies Prohibiting or Materially Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws

201. SAPD General Manual Procedure 618.11 – Racial/Bias Profiling/Immigration
Policy prohibits its officers from referring persons to ICE unless the person has a federal
deportation warrant. But SAPD officers would not know if a person has a federal deportation
warrant unless they contacted ICE to obtain that information. Thus, SAPD’s Procedure 618.11 is
a de facto policy of prohibiting and materially limiting SAPD officers from complying with federal
immigration laws.
202. The City, McManus, and Walsh have a policy of contacting Catholic Charities any
time they encounter a smuggling or trafficking scene where suspected aliens are present and
contacting immigration counsel to represent the suspected aliens at the scene. This prohibits and
materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.
203. In addition, the City, McManus, Walsh, and Sculley have demonstrated a pattern
or practice of ignoring potential human smuggling incidents involving individuals smuggled in
trailers.
X. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Policies Prohibiting or Materially Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws

206. The City and McManus articulated a policy of restricting officers from
communicating with Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The City’s
witnesses state that this policy started shortly after the July 2017 incident, remains in place to the
present, and has even been codified after December 23, 2017, into a document which explicitly
states that officers should notify management rather than personally notifying Immigration and
Customs Enforcement of an incident.
207. In fact, on December 23, 2017, Mayor Nirenberg specifically instructed the City not
to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the City Manager, presumably acting upon this
policy, called Chief McManus to notify him of the incident. Chief McManus then ensured that
DHS agents—whether HSI or ICE—were kept away from the immigrants.
208. Thus, SAPD maintains a “Communications Policy” restricting officers from
communicating with federal law enforcement agents, which is a de facto policy of prohibiting and
materially limiting SAPD officers from complying with federal immigration laws.
XI. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Patterns and Practices of Prohibiting or Materially Limiting Enforcement of Immigration

Laws
210. Under SB4, a local entity “may not . . . as demonstrated by pattern or practice,
prohibit or materially limit the enforcement of immigration laws.” Tex. Gov’t Code §
752.053(a)(2).
211. McManus and the City repeatedly ordered officers to keep immigration
enforcement officers away from the suspected illegal aliens on December 23, 2017, and freely
admit, in the Mayor’s words, that this represents SAPD practice “followed to the letter.”

212. In fact, the City and McManus have a practice of using outside legal groups to
interfere with federal law enforcement operations.
213. Yet these patterns and practices prohibit and materially limit the enforcement of
immigration laws.
XII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
215. Texas Government Code section 752.055 authorizes the Attorney General to seek
equitable relief to enjoin McManus and Walsh from future violations of SB4. Id. § 752.055(b).
216. Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin Defendants the City and McManus from future
violations of Texas Government Code section 752.053.
217. Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin Defendants the City, McManus, and Walsh from
enforcing: (1) SAPD General Manual Procedure 618.11 (Immigration Policy), (2) the
“Communications Policy” described herein, and (3) the City’s patterns and practices of
prohibiting and materially limiting the enforcement of immigration law.
XIII. CIVIL PENALTIES
219. Texas Government Code section 752.056 provides that a local entity that violates
section 752.053 is liable for civil penalties in an amount not less $1,000 or more than $1,500 for the
first violation, and not less than $25,000 and not more than $25,500 for each subsequent violation.
Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.056(a)(1–2). Each day of a continuing violation of section 752.053
constitutes a separate violation for the calculation of civil penalties under section 752.056. Id. §
752.056(b).

220. Plaintiff asks the Court to award civil penalties in the amount of $1,500 for the first
violation, and $25,500 for each subsequent violation based on Defendants’ violations of section
752.053.
221. Plaintiff asks the Court to award a civil penalty of at least $1,500 for Defendant
McManus’s violation of section 752.053(a)(1) on December 23, 2017.
City’s violation of section 752.053(a)(1) on December 23, 2017.
McManus’s violation of section 752.053(b)(3) on December 23, 2017.
City’s violation of section 752.053(b)(3) on December 23, 2017.
225. Plaintiff asks the Court to award a civil penalty of at least $1,500 for Defendants’
adoption, enforcement, and endorsement of the City’s SAPD General Manual Procedure 618.11
(Immigration Policy), which became effective September 1, 2017. Plaintiff further asks the Court
to award a civil penalty of at least $25,500 per day, based on a continuing violation from September
2, 2017, to the present day, for Defendants’ adoption, enforcement, and endorsement of the City’s
SAPD General Manual Procedure 618.11 (Immigration Policy).
adoption, enforcement, and endorsement of the City’s Communications Policy, described above,
which became effective before September 1, 2017. Plaintiff further asks the Court to award a civil
penalty of at least $25,500 per day, based on a continuing violation from September 2, 2017, to the

present day, for Defendants’ adoption, enforcement, and endorsement of the Communications
Policy.
policy, pattern, and practice of prohibiting and materially limiting officers from cooperating with
federal immigration enforcement officers as well as interfering with efforts of federal law
enforcement officers, a policy, pattern, and practice, which became effective before September 1,
2017. Plaintiff further asks the Court to award a civil penalty of at least $25,500 per day, based
on a continuing violation from September 2, 2017, to the present day, for Defendants’ adoption,
enforcement, and endorsement of the policy, pattern, and practice of restricting officer
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officers.
XIV. ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
229. Texas Government Code section 402.006 provides for the recovery of attorney’s
fees and court costs, and the Attorney General may charge a reasonable fee for the electronic filing
of documents. Id. § 402.006(c), (e).
230. Plaintiff asks the Court to award its full attorney’s fees and costs, which will be
provided at the appropriate time.
XV. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
231. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Texas requests that Defendants disclose,
within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2.
XVI. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment against Defendants and:

A. Issue a writ of injunction prohibiting Defendants the City of San Antonio,
McManus, and Walsh from future violations of Texas Government Code §
752.053;
B. Issue a writ of injunction prohibiting Defendants the City of San Antonio,
McManus, and Walsh from enforcing: (1) the City’s SAPD General Manual
Procedure 618.11 (Immigration Policy), (2) its Communications Policy,
described above, and (3) its pattern, practice, and policy of restricting
cooperation with federal immigration officers and interfering with federal
immigration officers;
C. Award a civil penalty of $1,500 against Defendant McManus for the
violation of Texas Government Code § 752.053(a)(1) on December 23,
2017;
D. Award a civil penalty of $1,500 against Defendant City of San Antonio for
the violation of Texas Government Code § 752.053(a)(1) on December 23,
2017;
E. Award a civil penalty of $1,500 against Defendant McManus for the
violation of Texas Government Code § 752.053(b)(3) on December 23,
2017;
F. Award a civil penalty of $1,500 against Defendant City of San Antonio for
the violation of Texas Government Code § 752.053(b)(3) on December 23,
2017;

G. Award civil penalties of $1,500 for the first day, and $25,500 for each
subsequent day, from September 1, 2017, to the present day, for
Defendants’ adoption, enforcement, and endorsement of the City’s SAPD
General Manual Procedure 618.11 (Immigration Policy).
H. Award attorney’s fees and costs to the Attorney General; and
I. Award all such other and further relief, at law and in equity, to which
Plaintiff may show himself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of October 2020.
KEN PAXTON
BRENT WEBSTER
RYAN L. BANGERT
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
/s/Eric A. Hudson
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel
CLEVE W. DOTY
ROBERT E. CALLAN III

robert.callan@oag.texas.gov

Telephone: (512) 936-1414

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 20th day of October, 2020, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition was electronically filed and e-served on all known
counsel in this case.
/s/Eric A. Hudson
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
TITLE 3. EXTRAORDINARY REMEDIES
CHAPTER 66. QUO WARRANTO
Sec. 66.001. GROUNDS. An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if:
(1) a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office,
including an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state;
(2) a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;
(3) an association of persons acts as a corporation without being legally incorporated;
(4) a corporation does or omits an act that requires a surrender or causes a forfeiture of its
rights and privileges as a corporation;
(5) a corporation exercises power not granted by law;
(6) a railroad company charges an extortionate rate for transportation of freight or passengers;
or
(7) a railroad company unlawfully refuses to move over its lines the cars of another railroad
company.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.
Sec. 66.002. INITIATION OF SUIT. (a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the
county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court of the proper county or a district
judge if the court is in vacation for leave to file an information in the nature of quo warranto.
(b) The petition must state that the information is sought in the name of the State of Texas.
(c) The attorney general or county or district attorney may file the petition on his own motion or at the
request of an individual relator.
(d) If there is probable ground for the proceeding, the judge shall grant leave to file the information,
order the information to be filed, and order process to be issued.
Sec. 66.003. JUDGMENT. If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as
charged, the court:
(1) shall enter judgment removing the person from the office or franchise;
(2) shall enter judgment for the costs of prosecution in favor of the relator; and
(3) may fine the person for usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding and executing the
office or franchise.
GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
CHAPTER 752. IMMIGRATION
Sec. 752.0565. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE. (a) For purposes of Section 66.001, Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, a person holding an elective or appointive office of a political subdivision of this state does an act that causes
the forfeiture of the person's office if the person violates Section 752.053.
(b) The attorney general shall file a petition under Section 66.002, Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
against a public officer to which Subsection (a) applies if presented with evidence, including evidence of a
statement by the public officer, establishing probable grounds that the public officer engaged in conduct described
by Subsection (a). The court in which the petition is filed shall give precedence to proceedings relating to the
petition in the same manner as provided for an election contest under Section 23.101.
(c) If the person against whom an information is filed based on conduct described by Subsection (a) is
found guilty as charged, the court shall enter judgment removing the person from office.
Added by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 4 (S.B. 4), Sec. 1.01, eff. September 1, 2017.
TX RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 7. QUO WARRANTO
RULE 779. JOINDER OF PARTIES
When it appears to the court or judge that the several rights of divers parties to the same office or franchise may
properly be determined on one information, the court or judge may give leave to join all such persons in the same
information in order to try their respective rights to such office or franchise.
RULE 780. CITATION TO ISSUE
When such information is filed, the clerk shall issue citation as in civil actions, commanding the defendant to
appear and answer the relator in an information in the nature of a quo warranto.
RULE 781. PROCEEDING AS IN CIVIL CASES
Every person or corporation who shall be cited as hereinbefore provided shall be entitled to all the rights in the
trial and investigation of the matters alleged against him, as in other cases of trial of civil cases in this State. Either
party may prosecute an appeal or writ of error from any judgment rendered, as in other civil cases, subject,
however, to the provisions of Rule 42, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the appellate court shall give
preference to such case, and hear and determine the same as early as practicable.
RULE 782. REMEDY CUMULATIVE
The remedy and mode of procedure hereby prescribed shall be construed to be cumulative of any now existing.
CAUSE NO. _________________

§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
ORDER GRANTING THE STATE OF TEXAS’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN

INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO
THIS MATTER came to be heard on the State of Texas’s Petition for Leave to File an
Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto to declare that William McManus violated Section
752.053 of the Texas Government Code and to remove him from office.
The Court being fully advised, it is HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Petition for Leave to File an Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto is
GRANTED;
2. The Clerk of Court SHALL file the Information; and
3. The Clerk of Court SHALL issue citation to the named defendant.
SO ORDERED this _____ day of _____________, 2021.
__________________________________
Hon. John D. Gabriel, Judge Presiding
CAUSE NO. ___________________

§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
ORDER SETTING A HEARING ON THE STATE OF TEXAS’S PETITION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE AN INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO
THIS MATTER came to be heard on the State of Texas’s Petition for Leave to File an
Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto to declare that William McManus violated Section
752.053 of the Texas Government Code, causing him to forfeit his office, and that William
McManus is hereby removed from office.
The Court hereby sets a hearing on the State’s Petition for ________________, 2021
at _____ a.m./p.m.
You do not need to go to the Courthouse. The hearing will be conducted remotely on
Zoom. You may participate in the hearing using a telephone call-in number or by logging on to
Zoom.
YOU MUST ATTEND THE PRESIDING COURT DOCKET CALL BY ZOOM AT
THE TIME INDICATED ABOVE.
The link to the Presiding Court Zoom is https://zoom.us/my/bexarpresidingcourtzoom.
The Presiding Court Zoom meeting ID is 917-895-6796. If you are unable to log on you can call the
Zoom telephone access number for Presiding Court at 1 (346) 248-7799. You will need to input the
Presiding Court Zoom access code: 917-895-6796.
1. The time announcement: 30 minutes.

2. Telephone numbers for all attorneys or self-represented litigants:
Patrick Sweeten: 512-463-4139
Eric Hudson: 512-936-2266
Cleve Doty: 512-475-4136
3. Email addresses for all attorneys and self-represented litigants:
Patrick Sweeten: patrick.sweeten@oag.texas.gov
Eric Hudson: eric.hudson@oag.texas.gov
Cleve Doty: cleve.doty@oag.texas.gov
4. Whether the party is ready or not: Petitioner is ready.
5. Whether an interpreter is required: A Spanish interpreter is NOT required.
6. The number of witnesses to be called: None.
7. The total number of participants in the call: Seven persons will participate in the hearing.
8. Whether a record is required: A record is required.
SO ORDERED this _____ day of _______________, 2021.
__________________________________
Judge Presiding
Order Setting Hearing on the State of Texas’s Petition for Leave Page 2
to File an Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto
FILED
2/22/2021 12:00 AM
Mary Angie Garcia
Accepted By: Shaamid Gaitan
FILED
2/2/2021 12:27 PM
Mary Angie Garcia
Accepted By: Mario Hernandez
CAUSE NO. 2021CI00942
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

§
Petitioner, §
§
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
Respondent. § 45TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

THE STATE OF TEXAS
The State of Texas (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, hereby provides notice of
withdrawal of Eric Hudson as counsel for Plaintiff in this case. Mr. Hudson will no longer
participate as counsel for Plaintiff because he has accepted a new position. Plaintiff hereby
designates Cleve Doty and Charles Eldred as co-lead counsel of record in this matter. Patrick K.
Sweeten will remain counsel in this matter and will continue to represent Plaintiff’s interest.
Notice of the withdrawal of Mr. Hudson will be provided to counsel who have advised that
they will be representing McManus in this matter. There will be no inconvenience to the Court
as a result of this withdrawal.
Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
BRENT WEBSTER
GRANT DORFMAN
SHAWN COWLES
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
patrick.sweeten@oag.texas.gov
CHARLES K. ELDRED
Special Litigation Counsel
charles.eldred@oag.texas.gov
/s/ Cleve W. Doty

CLEVE W. DOTY
JOSEPH W. SHANEYFELT
joseph.shaneyfelt@texas.oag.gov

Telephone: (512) 936-1414

The State of Texas
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on
counsel of record on February 2, 2021, through electronic service and email, in accordance with
Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONNA K. MCELROY
112 E. Pecan Street, Suite 1800
San Antonio, Texas 78205
DMcElroy@dykema.com
Counsel for Defendant

/s/ Cleve W. Doty
CLEVE W. DOTY
3
FILED
1/22/2021 4:39 PM
Mary Angie Garcia
Accepted By: Ana Cortijo

§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
The undersigned attorney hereby enters an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Ken Paxton,
Attorney General of Texas, in the above-referenced proceeding, and requests service of all notices,
pleadings, and other documents. Mr. Joseph W. Shaneyfelt will serve as co-counsel going forward.
KEN PAXTON
BRENT WEBSTER
GRANT DORFMAN
SHAWN COWLES
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel
/s/ Joseph W. Shaneyfelt

JOSEPH W. SHANEYFELT
joseph.shaneyfelt@texas.oag.gov
CHARLES K. ELDRED
CLEVE W. DOTY

Telephone: (512) 936-1414

2
FILED
1/22/2021 4:36 PM
Mary Angie Garcia
Accepted By: Shaamid Gaitan

§
Petitioner, §
§
v. §
§
Department, §
§
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
The undersigned attorney hereby enters an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff Ken Paxton,
Attorney General of Texas, in the above-referenced proceeding, and requests service of all notices,
pleadings, and other documents. Mr. Charles K. Eldred will serve as co-counsel going forward.
KEN PAXTON
BRENT WEBSTER
GRANT DORFMAN
SHAWN COWLES
PATRICK K. SWEETEN
ERIC A. HUDSON
Special Counsel
/s/ Charles K. Eldred

CHARLES K. ELDRED
CLEVE W. DOTY

Telephone: (512) 936-1414

2
FILED
1/15/2021 4:44 PM
Mary Angie Garcia
Accepted By: Cynthia Aponte
January 15, 2021
Mary Angie Garcia

101 W Nueva, Suite 217
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3411
Re: Cause No. 2021-CI-00942; Ken Paxton v. William McManus; in the 45th Judicial
District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Dear Ms. Garcia,
We respectfully request a file-stamped copy of the Information in the Nature of Quo

Warranto filed in the above-referenced matter this day.
Thank you,
/s/ Cleve W. Doty

Cleve W. Doty
Administrative Law Division
Telephone: (512) 475-4136
P os t Of fic e Box 12548 , Aust in, Texa s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www. texa satto r neyg eneral .gov

William McManus Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

William McManus Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

Request for Process

Request the following process: (Please check all that Apply)

Title of Document/Pleading to be Attached to Process:

Name of Attorney/Pro se: Cleve W. Doty Bar Number: 2406927

Attorney for Plaintiff X Defendant Other

CAUSE NO. __________________

KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS’S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN INFORMATION IN

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE:

is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

I. Grounds and Applicable Law

State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

file” a quo warranto proceeding under those circumstances).

the Texas Government Code.

act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office[.]”).

5:55 PM), https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Sculley-names-five-finalists-for-

State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 781.

court did not err in granting permission to file it.”).

State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

no longer lawfully hold his office.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of January, 2021.

/s/ Cleve W. Doty __

State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

Counsel for Plaintiff

State’s Petition for Leave to File Information

KEN PAXTON, in his official capacity as § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

INFORMATION IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT JUDGE:

McManus from office. In support of this Information, the State shows:

I. Parties and Jurisdiction

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 1 of 12

San Antonio, Tex., Charter art. 5, § 57.

II. Facts and Grounds for Relief

prohibit or materially limit enforcement of immigration laws, whether by policy, pattern, or in

actual practice. Id. at § 752.053(a).

7. Under Senate Bill 4, public officials—whether appointed or elected—must refrain

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 2 of 12

person’s office[.]” Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.0565(a).

to thwart federal agents’ attempts to apprehend fugitives.

border enforcement agents already.

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 3 of 12

County, Texas. A copy of the petition is attached as Exhibit A.

13. In addition, McManus implemented these policies specifically on December 23,

illegal immigrants. On that day, McManus repeatedly violated Section 752.053.

McManus Repeatedly Violates Senate Bill 4 on December 23, 2017

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 4 of 12

officers were ordered by McManus to keep ICE out.

arrived at the scene.

protecting you from immigration.”

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 5 of 12

25. SAPD officers continued attempting to cooperate with federal authorities,

the Sergeant asked for clarification from his command.

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 6 of 12

McManus, however, ignored those concerns.

an immigration lawyer, away from federal agents.

Smugglers Escape Jail Time While McManus Dissembles,

organization were even pursued by SAPD.

mass homicide in the City.

makes us a sanctuary city.”

Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto Page 7 of 12

36. McManus then lied about the incident publicly.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME this _ 15 day of _______,