Jensen, Thomas

tturnbull@sacsheriff.com;Wells, Timothy;Hill, Ian;Payant, Theresa;'Thom Jensen'

<thomjenseninvestigates@gmail.com>;
Hi Tony,
I wanted to let you know we are running a story Monday that focuses on many comments the
Sheriff made during his latest press conference, and we will put those statements through a
truth test using public records and legal experts to show many of his statement are untrue.
These are the specific points:
1.) We are the first local or state agency to adopt such a policy. This statement was made no
fewer than five times and will likely be edited in such a way to show how forceful the sheriff
was in his assertion.
a.) Our story will show there are several examples of state, county and other agencies
who already have/and had policies in place prior to the press conference.
2.) The sheriff also asserted that he is doing this on his own, because he swore to voters he
would be transparent, and that he only recently became aware of the non-disclosure
agreement. He repeatedly said he didn't need to get warrants
a.) Judicial apporoval is required to use any type of cell site locating device and anything
that captures incoming numbers. Two federal court judges have already ruled this is the case.
One ruling was made last year, and another court stated the same thing this year in California
(the first ruling came more than a year and four months prior to the sheriff's policy release
press conference)
b.) A local law professor, with extensive expertise in the areas of National Security Law
and Police Surveillance Law, is on camera stating that the sheriff violated basic warrant
requirements that are supported by long-standing legal precedent. We would be remiss in also
mentioning that the sheriff has a law degree from Lincoln.
3.) Sheriff Jones demanded that he had no choice but to mislead the public, because of his
non-disclosure.
a.) Our research will show that the sheriff did have an option, as Santa Clara County
showed. It decided it would not accept the device or the federal funding, because the nondisclosure demands were to restrictive and in violation of state and federal records laws and
that the use of the device violates 4th Amendment rights. The sheriff also had this option, but
he went out and purchased a new "cell site simulator" even after we requested information
about the Harris Corporation records - and the sheriff replied that he had no "records
responsive to our request."
b.) The latest non-disclosure was signed after our initial inquiries about Stingrays, and yet
in the press conference the sheriff said he didn't realize that he has signed such an agreement.
How do you reconcile this? Does the sheriff, by practice, ink his names to items and agree to
violate public records laws? How did he not know what he was signing? Also, if that was true,
why did the sheriff claim in 2013 - that he had no responsive documents. (In the press

conference he said he couldn't comment, because of the non-disclosure but then said that he
only realized that there was a non-disclosure. So, why did he not make a mistake and disclose
the information - if the department didn't realize there was a non-disclosure when we made
our initial requests in 2013?
4.) Sheriff Jones, on two occasions, said the devices are unable to collect any content like
text messages, and that we incorrectly reported this. However, Harris even admits that the
devices can be configured to collect that information - but that each device is individually
tailored to each jurisdiction's needs. How did the sheriff have his device configured? Can we
now have the documents, since the "cat is out of the bag"? Also, several Tech firms confirm
that the Harris devices, when used in Iraq and Afghanistan collected every type of cell data
available.
5.) The sheriff claimed that I was barred from a press conference, because of the way I
"conduct" my "business." The sheriff's personal assistant Jason Ramos, told me he would
explain what that meant "following the press conference." Ramos couldn't give one example of
how my work in asking an elected an official questions about his secret surveillance practices
violated any ethical rules or rules of decorum.
a.) Is the sheriff now prepared to support that statement, or will the video of our only
engagement speak for itself - as we put that statement through the "truth test"?
Also, I continue to extend an open invitation to sit down and interview the sheriff on his terms
(as I did the first night I talked to him).
In closing, this story will air Monday evening with or without a response. If you have any points
that you wish to debate in this story please do so before Monday afternoon.
Thank you for your time.
-Thom Jensen
ABC10 Investigative Reporter