One of the men in charge of the Maricopa County sheriff's human-smuggling unit when the agency was most fervently pursuing undocumented immigrants supplied Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies with inaccurate or false interpretations of federal immigration law.

Sheriff's Sgt. Brett Palmer testified in federal court Wednesday that he also forwarded racially insensitive e-mails to other deputies, including to members of the human-smuggling unit, one of which depicted a Hispanic man passed out near a bottle of tequila with the caption "Mexican Yoga."

Dana: 2008 video contradicts Arpaio testimony

Palmer said in court that he regretted sending the e-mails, which he considered jokes.

"Did you ever receive any feedback from anyone indicating to you that this indicates to them that you have a problem, somehow you're racist, somehow you have some issue?" Arpaio's attorney, Tim Casey, asked Palmer.

"No I did not," he said. "I'm uncertain of the time of the discipline, but I am certain that I was disciplined."

The e-mail exchanges from one of the people responsible for directing the sheriff's human-smuggling unit came to light in the third day of what is expected to be a six-day bench trial to determine whether Arpaio's agency systematically discriminates against Latinos.

The deputy's testimony came a day after attorneys for the plaintiffs highlighted some of Arpaio's statements about illegal immigration, hoping to bolster the plaintiffs' claim that a culture of discrimination in the agency started with Arpaio and flowed down through the organization to commanders and supervisors like Palmer and deputies making traffic stops.

In Palmer's case, information flowed from him up the organizational chart in at least one key instance. Research the 12-year employee of the Sheriff's Office did on federal immigration law ended up being cited by Arpaio during a 2009 news conference. It was later learned that the law Arpaio cited did not exist and that the research was a legal interpretation taken from an anti-illegal-immigration website.

The trial is being conducted in front of U.S. District Judge Murray Snow without a jury, which allows Snow to question witnesses when he sees fit. On both occasions when he has questioned sheriff's deputies, his inquiries have centered on issues involving training, experience, oversight and instructions given before sheriff's saturation patrols, where deputies have flooded neighborhoods looking for traffic violations as a way to contact drivers and potentially capture undocumented immigrants.

Key players in a traffic stop took the stand Wednesday as a motorcycle deputy and a pair of siblings whom he stopped in a 2008 immigration operation near Cave Creek recounted their versions of the encounter.

Deputy Michael Kikes, who pulled over the SUV in which Velia Meraz rode with her brother, Manuel Nieto, took the witness stand first.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed out numerous contradictions between deposition testimony Kikes gave earlier and his statements in court Wednesday.

Snow picked up on a couple of apparent contradictions, too. He questioned Kikes about his involvement with the sheriff's saturation patrols and the instructions he was given before the operations began.

Kikes initially told the court that he recalled seeing an instruction sheet for the March 2008 operation that included a specific warning against racial profiling. "In bold letters, I remember," Kikes said.

Snow later had Kikes look at the instruction sheet. The deputy could find no such admonition. Kikes also claimed he was in a briefing before the operation, but his name did not appear on an attendance sheet that other deputies signed.

The contradictions in Kikes' testimony became more significant as Meraz and Nieto gave accounts of their stop and detention that directly conflicted with Kikes' statements. Kikes claimed he never used force with Nieto after stopping the siblings' SUV at the request of another deputy.

Kikes also said he never drew his weapon during the stop, but Meraz and Nieto testified that some deputies had their guns drawn.

At the end of each plaintiff's testimony, attorneys for the Sheriff's Office posed the same question: Has a sheriff's deputy pulled you over since the incident that led to your profiling claim? All have so far answered no, and the attorneys' point is clear: If the Sheriff's Office discriminated against Latinos, surely you would have been pulled over by now.

As the trial progressed Wednesday afternoon, preparations and instructions given to deputies before saturation patrols took precedence over their activities while on patrol.

Palmer testified that deputies participating in the operations are warned repeatedly against discriminating or using race as a factor when considering contacting drivers.

He also referenced instruction sheets where that admonition was in bold and underlined.

But under questioning from Cecillia Wang, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, Palmer said he could not provide data to show deputies were not contacting Hispanic drivers at disproportionate rates because those types of statistics are not available. Palmer answered that he trusts his subordinates.

He also said he did not hesitate to correct callers who phoned the sheriff's immigration hotline to report concerns that were related to race more than crime.

"If there wasn't any criminal matter present at the location they were describing, I would have no problem telling an individual that what they provided to me amounts to racial profiling," Palmer said. "In those instances, they fell into two categories: One category where they would be completely compliant and understanding ... the other one would yell, scream and swear at me."

Arpaio on Tuesday testified that the locations of the operations were not influenced by correspondence from citizens, some of whom cited Spanish-speaking fast-food workers as a reason for a potential immigration sweep.

Instead, the sheriff said he forwarded that information to staff members, including Deputy Chief Brian Sands, who oversees the human-smuggling unit, for their assessment.

Sands on Wednesday said some of that correspondence did influence where immigration sweeps took place, but he did not say which citizen requests prompted which raids.

Sands also said the fact that Arpaio responds to citizens isn't necessarily improper, once again setting up the position's need to balance the demands of a politician and police officer that Snow will have to weigh in his decision.

"I believe the sheriff can respond to his constituents how he feels he should," Sands said. "The way he responds to his constituents isn't necessarily the way I deal with it. I don't normally have to deal with a lot of that. It's not fair for me to put words in his mouth. ... If he wants to respond to it, he's the officeholder."

Sands is expected to continue his testimony today with other deputies and plaintiffs scheduled to follow.

The trial is scheduled to end next week.