1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice) 

Erin E. McCampbell Paris (NY Bar No. 4480166, admitted pro hac vice) 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

DEFENDANT MICHAEL LACEY’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

HIS CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 

(Oral argument requested) 

 Defendant Michael Lacey, by and through his undersigned attorneys, hereby moves under 

18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) & (3) for an order amending his conditions of pretrial release as set forth 

in the Court’s April 13, 2018 Order (Doc. 67). During a recent home visit, Ian Scott, the Pretrial 

Services Officer assigned to Mr. Lacey, suggested that Mr. Lacey petition this Court to have his ankle 

bracelet removed. Undersigned counsel spoke with the government about this request, and the 

government does not object to the removal of the ankle bracelet. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 1 of 8
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 As discussed in greater detail below, the condition of release requiring continued electronic 

monitoring is not the lease restrictive condition that will reasonably ensure Mr. Lacey’s presence at 

trial and the safety of the community. Further, electronic monitoring prevents Mr. Lacey from 

engaging in the form of exercise that he has relied upon his entire life – swimming – to ameliorate 

the effects of a heart condition, maintain physical fitness, and alleviate stress. 

 This unopposed motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 

the Court’s file, and any evidence or argument presented at the hearing on this matter. U.S. Pretrial 

Services has no objection to the removal of Mr. Lacey’s electronic monitoring ankle bracelet, and, 

in fact, suggested that he move the Court to have it removed. The government does not object. 

 Excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) may occur as a result of this Motion or of an 

order based thereon. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of April, 2023, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Erin McCampbell Paris 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 2 of 8
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

As set forth in greater detail below, Michael Lacey moves to amend the order setting his 

conditions of supervised release (Doc. 67) to strike the condition requiring electronic monitoring. 

BACKGROUND 

I. Mr. Lacey is a 74-year-old, long-term resident of Arizona, with deep ties to this 

District.

 Mr. Lacey is an honored journalist who has been an active member of the Arizona 

community for fifty-seven years. In 1966, Mr. Lacey moved to Arizona to attend Arizona State 

University. In 1970, Mr. Lacey co-founded an alternative newspaper originally called the Arizona 

Times and subsequently renamed the Phoenix New Times. The newspaper became and has remained 

a prominent voice for free speech and journalism in Arizona for forty-nine years. In addition to 

founding the Phoenix New Times, Mr. Lacey and his partners acquired sixteen other newspapers, 

forming a nationwide conglomerate which they operated under Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC 

(“VVMH”). Collectively, the newspapers, which provided their publications free of charge, had 

more than 1.8 million readers. Because the newspapers did not require subscriptions, the publication 

of classified advertisements evolved as a key part of the revenue supporting the newspapers. 

Mr. Lacey, who served as the editor-in-chief of the newspapers, oversaw investigative 

journalism covering a broad array of topics. During his tenure, the newspapers won hundreds of 

awards, including the Pulitzer Prize. Indeed, Mr. Lacey has been honored numerous times for his 

excellence in journalism.1 

 

1

 Mr. Lacey won the 2011 Clarion Award from the Association for Women in 

Communications for his story about a diabetic woman who died in jail custody. See Michael 

Lacey, What’s Mom Worth?: When a Woman Became Deathly Ill in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Jail, Guards and 

Nurse Ignored Her Agony, PHOENIX NEW TIMES (Dec. 9, 2010), 

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/whats-mom-worth-when-a-woman-becamedeathly-ill-in-sheriff-joe-arpaios-jail-guards-and-nurses-ignored-her-agony-6446744. Mr. 

Lacey was awarded the 2010 Best in the West journalism competition award for Immigration 

and Minority Affairs Reporting (along with Stephen Lemons and Paul Rubins of the New 

Times) for a series concerning immigration enforcement tactics of the Maricopa County 

Sheriffs County sheriff’s office. See Michael Lacey, Are Your Papers In Order?, Phoenix New 

Times (March. 12, 2009), http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/are-your-papers-inCase 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 3 of 8
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In addition to his commitment to providing free access to trail-blazing journalism, Mr. Lacey 

has been very generous to the Arizona community. For example, from 2014-2017, Mr. Lacey and 

his co-defendant James Larkin donated $3.75 million dollars to various non-profit organizations that 

assist immigrants and refugees.2 Mr. Lacey has also donated to various non-profit organizations 

including those focused on encouraging minorities to vote. Further, Mr. Lacey (through VVMH), 

created paid digital fellowships for minority journalists in conjunction with the Walter Cronkite 

School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University (and the Medill School 

of Journalism at Northwestern University). These programs were instrumental in providing aspiring 

minority journalists with a jump start on their careers. These are just examples of the many 

philanthropic activities in which Mr. Lacey has participated. 

Mr. Lacey has significant personal ties to Arizona and the United States. Mr. Lacey is a longterm resident of Arizona and resides in Arizona. He owns numerous properties in Arizona, 

including his primary residence, where he has resided since 2005. Additionally, he owns several 

properties in the State of California. He has two sons, one who lives with him at his primarily 

 

order-6426683. He led a VVM series called Amongst Us, deploying reporters across the country 

to report stories of the travails and contributions of Latinos, which won the 2011 James 

Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. See http://brie.hunter.cuny.edu/aronson/?page 

_id=1169. Mr. Lacey has also received the Valley of the Sun Society of Professional Journalists’ 

President’s Award, and has been honored by the Arizona chapters of the American Civil 

Liberties Union and the NAACP. 

2 These funds represent the settlement that Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin obtained after 

filing a successful Civil Rights Act suit against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for 

their wrongful arrests. The events that led to this lawsuit are indicative of Mr. Lacey’s 

commitment to vindication of his constitutional rights and defending himself against bogus 

criminal charges. Beginning in 2004, the Phoenix New Times published a series of articles critical 

of Sheriff Arpaio. These articles led to the arrests of Mr. Lacey and Mr. Larkin in the dead of 

night, see David Carr, A Knock in the Night in Phoenix, New York Times (May 12, 2008), 

http://nytimes.com/2008/05/12/business/media/12carr.html; however, all of the charges 

against them were promptly dismissed. Subsequently, they filed the civil action, and prevailed 

with an en banc victory in the Ninth Circuit, in which the Court recognized that “[i]t is hard to 

conceive of a more direct assault on the First Amendment than public officials ordering the 

immediate arrests of their critics.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 917 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(en banc). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 4 of 8
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

residence in Arizona, and is preparing to attend graduate school in Phoenix, and one who lives in 

California. Mr. Lacey also has a brother who lives in Kansas, and a sister who lives in New York. 

He has always and continues to maintain strong relationships with his children and siblings. 

II. The charges pending against Mr. Lacey. 

 On March 28, 2018, a grand jury sitting in this District indicted Mr. Lacey and his codefendants for allegedly conspiring to violate the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1952), as well as 

violations of the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. §1952), and the money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 

1957). (See Indict., Doc. 3.) On July 25, 2018, the government obtained a superseding indictment, 

which is the operative indictment in this case. (See Super. Indict., Doc. 230.) The superseding 

indictment included the original charges, as well as additional charges under the Travel Act and 

money laundering statutes. (See id.) In August 2021, the parties proceeded to trial, which ended in 

the Court granting the Defendants’ oral motion for a mistrial. The new trial is scheduled to begin 

on August 8, 2023. At this time, there is a motion to dismiss pending. (See Doc. 1557.) 

During the more than five years that this case has been pending, Mr. Lacey has complied 

with all conditions of release, has attended all necessary Court appearances, including the first trial, 

and has been in constant contact with his attorneys. 

 Additionally, prior to issuance of the indictment in this case, the Attorney General of the 

State of California filed a criminal complaint against Messrs. Lacey, Larkin, and Ferrer, charging them 

with one count of conspiracy and nine counts of pimping. On December 9, 2016, the court 

granted defendants’ demurrer, dismissing all counts and recognizing that “providing a forum 

for online publishing is a recognized legal purpose.” People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE019224 (Sup. Ct. 

Sacramento Cnty. Dec. 9, 2016), slip op. at 13. Although the California Attorney General filed a 

new criminal complaint, all charges, including pimping, were dismissed except for bank fraud 

charges. See People v. Ferrer, No. 16FE024013 (Sup. Ct. Sacramento Cnty. Aug. 23, 2017). 

Throughout the California proceedings, Mr. Lacey has been released on bail without the 

requirement of use of an electronic monitoring anklet or other forms of monitoring. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 5 of 8
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. The current conditions of pretrial release were more restrictive than necessary and 

should be revisited. 

For five years, Mr. Lacey has been monitored by Pretrial Services, during which time he 

has fully complied with his pretrial release conditions. At this time, his Pretrial Services Officer, 

the person in the best position to opine on his risk of flight and danger to public safety, has 

suggested that he seek an order from this Court amending his conditions or release to strike the 

condition requiring the electronic monitoring anklet. The government does not oppose this 

request. 

IV. The condition requiring use of an electronic monitoring anklet prohibits Mr. Lacey 

from swimming, which he relies upon to maintain health and alleviate stress. 

 Mr. Lacey is 74 years old. Prior to his arrest, he regularly swam to maintain his health, 

manage his weight, and alleviate stress. This discipline is the one form of exercise to which he 

has been able to successfully commit. He has been unable to swim since his arrest because he 

is required to wear an electronic monitoring anklet. In light of Mr. Lacey’s advanced age, and 

the stress of having lived under an indictment for five years, makes the ability to swim much 

more important to his overall health and well being. 

ARGUMENT 

Based on all of the above and the opinion of Mr. Lacey’s Pretrial Services officer, 

electronic monitoring is not a necessary condition to ensure his presence at trial or public safety. 

For that reason, Mr. Lacey respectfully requests that this Court amend the Order to strike the 

condition requiring the continued use of an electronic monitoring anklet. This Court is 

empowered to “at any time[,] amend the order to impose additional or different conditions of 

release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). Further, conditions of release must be the “least restrictive” 

conditions necessary to “reasonably assure” the defendant’s appearance and the community’s 

safety.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The requirement that the conditions “reasonably assure” 

appearance and safety do not require a guarantee of safety or non-flight. See United States v. 

Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086, 1092 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gentry, 455 F. Supp. 2d 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 6 of 8
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1018, 1032 (D. Ariz. 2006). In making a determination on the appropriateness of the conditions 

of release, courts must consider: the defendant’s history and characteristics; danger to the 

community; and nature of the offense and weight of the evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 

I. Mr. Lacey’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of amending the Order to 

omit the condition requiring continued use of an electronic monitoring anklet.

 Mr. Lacey’s history and characteristics weigh in favor of removal of the anklet because 

he presents no risk of flight. He is 74 years old and has resided in this District since 1966. He 

has strong familial ties to this District and owns numerous properties in this District, in addition 

to properties in California. 

 For more than five years, Mr. Lacey has fully complied with all conditions of release and 

has appeared at every court appearance, including the first trial. 

 More importantly, Mr. Lacey’s Pretrial Services Officer suggested to Mr. Lacey that he 

file the instant motion seeking authorization to remove the anklet, which the government does 

not oppose. This factor, alone, weighs heavily in favor of removal of the anklet. 

II. The removal of Mr. Lacey’s anklet does not increase the risk of danger to the 

community.

 This factor is a non-issue for this Court. The only risk that Mr. Lacey purportedly 

presented to the public concerns his purported involvement with the website 

www.backpage.com, which the government shut down more than five years ago. 

III. The government’s case. 

 The government’s case has been pending for more than five years, during which time the 

first trial ended in mistrial. At this time, a motion to dismiss is pending. (Doc. 1557.) 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 7 of 8
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CONCLUSION 

 In light of the unopposed motion to amend, Mr. Lacey respectfully requests that this 

Court amend the Order to remove the condition requiring use of an electronic monitoring 

anklet. Given that this motion is unopposed, and was encouraged by Pretrial Services, 

undersigned counsel does not believe that oral argument would benefit the Court, but certainly 

would appear, to the extent that the Court would like to hear from the parties. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7th day of April, 2023, 

 /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

 LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey 

On April 7, 2023, a PDF version 

of this document was filed with 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and for Transmittal 

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

Following CM/ECF registrants: 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Austin Maxwell Berry, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1560 Filed 04/07/23 Page 8 of 8