The Florida Bar

651 East Jefferson Street

Tallahassee Fl 32399-2300

December 13, 2016

Complainants Rebuttal to Paul Rozelles Response

RE: Paul Grant Rozelle; RFA No. 17-6474
In the first self-serving paragraph of Paul Rozelles Response, he lists out all his accomplishment and
credentials in an attempt to sway the BAR to side on his behalf as a fellow colleague. However, what that
first paragraph also evidences is that a) he knew by his vast training exactly what he was doing and that it
was wrong, and b) he had the training to know that his actions were in clear violation of Title X, Chapter
119, Brady requirements, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and in violation of BAR rules. He would have
been well trained to understand that lying about the existence of documents that a criminal Defendant and
his defense team were entitled to was dead wrong, but he did it thinking he would not get caught and if he
did, he could continue to lie his way out of it and who would stop him? Paul Rozelles Response is full
of numerous additional blatant lies that I am now filing as an additional complaint.
In his response, attorney Paul Rozelle admits that he made false official statements on behalf of the
Pinellas County Sheriffs Office as senior associate counsel to Jerry Theophilopoolus regarding his
client James McLynas on two very critical issues; a) that the Stingray tracking device was NOT used
against James McLynas when in fact is was, and b) that no documents existed relating to the Stingray
device being used against Mr. McLynas. Rozelles only defense is that he didnt know, because he
CLAIMS (hearsay) that a low level clerk told him that they didnt exist, but he does not explain why he
falsely claimed that no Stingray was used on McLynas when that was the main basis for stating no
documents existed. He offers no explanation for the Stingray lie when records show he knew.
If the PCSO clerk knew that the documents didnt exist and no Stingray had been used on McLynas, then
why did she need to contact Paul Rozelle, senior associate counsel for advice on how to simply tell
McLynas that none of the documents he asked for existed? The answer; she wouldnt need to contact
Rozelle if that were the case. The documents existed and they turned to Rozelle to ask how to keep them
from McLynas. Sheriff Gualtieri and the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office, with the full knowledge of
Rozelle, had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and Harris Corporation [21] where the
Sheriff and SAO agreed not to discuss or divulge the existence of, or the documents relating to the use of
the Stingray tracking/wiretapping device, even in court cases, testimony and in depositions. [22] Nondisclosure agreements entered into by government agencies do not erase open records laws or Brady.
PCSO Sheriff Gualtieri agreed in writing to not disclose Stingray documents during pre-trial matters, in
search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other
affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the States case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in
any phase of civil or criminal trial [22] This is a blatant violation of Title X, Chapter 119 and Brady
rules on Criminal evidence disclosure. When the PCSO records department received the 5-24-15 records
request asking for Stingray documents, the records department knew that they existed and contacted
senior associate counsel Paul Rozelle to ask for guidance, and Rozelle told them to lie to McLynas
about the existence of the documents in the PCSOs 6-4-15 response. This is determined simply by

understanding that a) the PCSO and Rozelle said the records did not exist when they absolutely did, [1][2]
[3] and b) they were archived within the PCSO ACISS system [2] and could easily be searched and
accessed by Rozelle at the time McLynas made his Title X, Chapter 119 document request on 5-24-15.
As a senior member of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office legal team, Rozelle was an integral part of the
development and implementation of practices, policies and procedures put in place at the Pinellas County
Sheriffs office to interfere with, hinder and prevent citizens from obtaining public records that evidenced
PCSO corruption in general, and more specifically the illegal and unconstitutional use of Stingray
tracking/wiretapping devices. Rozelles intentional violation of Title X, Chapter 119 is also a CRIME.
[27] The intentional policies would NOT have been put in place without Rozelle being well aware of
them and his actions and statements contained within this complaint/response process dove-tail perfectly
with those deceptive policies and practices he helped implement and condoned at the PCSO. The
admission by Gualtieri that he entered into such an agreement to lie proves this. [21][22]
Paul Rozelle Lied to Attorney Jerry Theophilopoulos
It is not believable, credible or likely that Paul Rozelle knew nothing about PCSO Stingray usage and the
methods used to implement and document that usage. It is very easy to prove that Paul Rozelle not only
knew he was lying, but that he would have easily had access to the information requested by McLynas
(and ordered to be turned over by the court) and would have known exactly who to ask for it if he didnt.
As counsel for the PCSO, and as the representative for the PCSO in the hearing on 9-8-2015, it would
have been his legal obligation to do that research BEFORE he attended a hearing on the Defendants
Motion to Compel the very documents he claimed did not exist. Rozelle himself admits that he testified
on behalf of the PCSO in the 9-8-15 Motion to Compel hearing and again falsely stated to the court that
the documents did not exist. (is it a fact that they did exist) Did he even check? Is it believable that a
lawyer that represents a law enforcement agency would testify about documents not existing without even
doing his due diligence to ensure that his statements were accurate and factual before the court? Or is it
more believable that Paul Rozelle was following the agency policies put in place to adhere to the
FBI/Harris Corporation non-disclosure agreement that Sheriff Gualtieri had entered into? [21][22]
It is a fact that the McLynas Stingray documents were entered into the PCSOs ACISS report system and
included McLynas name attached to them. [3] That means that either Rozelle testified in open court, AND
lied to Jerry about the existence of evidence in a criminal case without even bothering to check to see if it
in fact they existed, or he DID check and did know they existed when he testified as a representative of
the PCSO and lied to Jerry and the court that the documents did not exist. Either way, Rozelle lied.
Rozelles admitted involvement in the 5-24-15 McLynas records request (Rozelles Exhibit 1) leaves no
doubt that he did know and lied and perjured himself regarding the existence of these documents.
Questioning the PCSOs records staff under oath would reveal the answers to those questions.
Depositions (including Rozelles) are being set and if requested I will provide the BAR with transcripts.
Rozelle would also have been VERY familiar with the PCSOs and the SAOs ongoing and continuous
Brady requirements and the actions he and the PCSO took to circumvent those requirements in ALL
Stingray cases. It would be very easy to investigate EACH case where the Stingray device was used and

then see if the PCSO and the State Attorney HAD disclosed the electronic surveillance to the Defendants
as required by Brady. My guess is that out of the hundreds of times a Stingray was used in Pinellas
County, the documents were NEVER voluntarily disclosed because Sheriff Gualtieri signed the FBI and
Harris Corps non-disclosure agreement saying that he would not, even when required to by law. [21][22]
In EACH of those cases where the PCSO used the Stingray tracking/wiretapping device, there is a
question of how evidence was obtained and if that evidence is admissible. In case after case across the
country evidence collected after violating a Defendants 4 th Amendment legal rights by using a Stingray
without a warrant are being thrown out. How many people are in jail in Pinellas County right now
serving time based on these Stingray 4th Amendment violations that would have never occurred if the
State Attorney and the PCSO had disclosed their illegal warrantless Stingray use? The 4 th Amendment is
the cornerstone of our Justice system and that foundation is being destroyed to the detriment of 6 th circuit
residents whose Constitutional and Due Process rights are being obliterated by the PCSO and the SAO.
When the Tampa Bay Times did a story (4-22-16) on Stingray use by the PCSO, they used the McLynas
case as an example. [20] When asked about the legalities of using the Stingray and getting a warrant,
PCSO Sheriff Gualtieri made multiple false statements to the press, even though he too is a lawyer;
Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gualtieri acknowledged his agency owns one simulator but said department
policy requires that deputies seek a court order to use it. Gualtieri, a lawyer, said the order shows the
probable cause of the case and the 13-page application outlines the charges against McLynas. When
asked why the order doesn't mention the Stingray, the sheriff said his agency doesn't have to specify its
methodology. "Once the order is issued telling you you can do it, how you do it is left to law
enforcement," Gualtieri said. Theophilopoulos also raised concerns that the Stingray records weren't
submitted in court in the first place, pointing to Florida's rules of criminal procedure, which state that
prosecutors have to disclose "electronic surveillance."
"That should have been turned over immediately," he said. "The sheriff is hiding the ball, and it's
scary to think of how many citizens have been affected by this technology and they'll never know."
Gualtieri said those records are not part of the case because they're not relevant to the charges. (at
the time Gualtieri made these remarks, the Florida Supreme Court ruling clearly stating that Stingray use
IS a part of the case was over two years old) [8]
Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe agreed.
"We know they got a defendant arrested. Really, I don't know that I'm terribly concerned how they
found (the suspect)," McCabe said. "That's not of evidentiary value. They committed whatever they're
charged with committing before that." [20]
Guilty until proven innocent in Pinellas County? ALL charges filed against McLynas (just after McLynas
informed Gualtieri he would be running for Sheriff to expose Gualteiris corruption) were proven to be
lies filed by Sheriff Gualtieri. Less than two months after McLynas informed Gualtieri he was running
for sheriff, McLynas is being illegally tracked by Stingray and arrested for five bogus felony charges that
were all eventually dropped because there was no evidence any crimes had been committed by McLynas.
Gualtieri blatantly lies to the press in direct contradiction to the Florida Supreme Courts ruling [8]
evidencing the widespread policies and practices of the PCSO. Sheriff Gualtieri and his legal team
(including Rozelle) intentionally violated Supreme Court rulings and 4 th Amendment and Brady rights. [8]

Shockingly, this violation of 4th Amendment rights is then echoed by State Attorney Bernie McCabe who
has his Assistant State Attorney Gregory Groger drafting the bogus Pen Register Applications [2] and
then claim that they provide the PCSO and SAO with the authority to track and wiretap somebody when
they clearly do not. McCabe states that he is not terribly concerned with how they found the suspect.
Well, defense attorneys might be terribly concerned with how they found the suspect and the
prosecution does not have the right to decide which evidence may or may not be important to the defense
and simply not turn it over to them. This is exactly what Brady was supposed to stop!
That same article also quotes a Tallahassee-based computer forensics analyst named John Sawicki, a
lawyer who studies Stingray cases that stated "How do you challenge the search that you never
learned occurred?" But Sawicki, who is also a lawyer, said the order doesn't request permission to use
a Stingray. "They're not asking to do anything even closely related to a Stingray," he said after
reading the (McLynas) order. "They appear to be misleading the court. There isn't anything in here
that identifies the methods that they're going to go about doing this." There also isnt anything in the
order granting permission for the PCSO to take any direct surveillance action because the Application
for a pen register is NOT a warrant.
It is a fact that Sheriff Gualtieri and Bernie McCabe entered into the FBI/ Harris Corps non-disclosure
agreement [21] [22] which would have them agreeing to lie in response to the 5-24-15 McLynas public
records request, lie in the Brady disclosure, Rozelle to lie in court and caused Rozelle to lie to Jerry
Theophilopoulos. This was not the little mistake Raul Rozelle is trying to deceive the BAR into
believing, but an inter-agency wide policy of violating 4th amendment rights, due process, Brady
requirements, violate BAR ethics and Title X, Chapter 119 just so that they can all keep using an illegal
Stingray tracking/wiretapping device without anyone knowing.
Even if one believes that Rozelle was lazy, ignorant, unintelligent, or any other number of excuses to not
disclose or provide the information and documentation; he clearly had access to the documentation and
knew exactly who he needed to ask to obtain it. This was true when Rozelle assisted the clerical
department in responding to the McLynas 5-24-15 document request asking for the Stingray documents. It
was true when Rozelle received a copy of the Motion to Compel. It was true when Rozelle was preparing
to appear at the 9-8-15 hearing on the Motion to Compel and it was true as he was telling Jerry
Theophilopoulos that the documents did not exist when he knew for certain they did exist and exactly
who had them. It was also true later that same day after the 9-8-15 hearing when he very easily claimed to
find out the documents DID exist by simply calling the TOU Stingray department, and yet Rozelle
took no action whatsoever to correct the response to the McLynas document request or the
misinformation he told Jerry Theophilopoulos or the court. He let the lies stand which is also a
BAR ethics violation.
Rozelle also knows that the PCSO had taken specific and intentional drastic measures to prevent the
records department (and thus the public) from having access to Stingray records but that does not relieve
him of he and the PCSOs legal obligation under Title X, Chapter 119 which requires that government
agencies do a good faith and thorough search for requested documents and archive documents in a
manner that enables them to be found easily. [25] What the PCSO and the SAO are doing is intentionally
the opposite of what these laws require by using fake report numbers, creating documents off-site and

literally keeping some documents a secret from their own records departments. PCSO and the SAO also
had similar responsibilities under Brady disclosure requirements and intentionally violated Brady.
After playing hide and seek with the records and intentionally keeping them from the records department,
Paul Rozelles lying about relying on a non-lawyer in a clerical position to tell him (senior assistant
counsel) what records existed and then using that as an excuse for lying to attorney Jerry Theophilopoulos
and to not adhere to open records laws and criminal rules of procedure for disclosure is pathetic. It is also
intentional and highly unethical. The PCSO cannot hide records by keeping them at the SAO. [25][26]
The PCSO 6-4-15 Document Request Response Proves Rozelle Knew Stingray Was Used
In Rozelles response in the second paragraph, Rozelle references his direct personal involvement in the
PCSOs 6-4-15 response to McLynas May 24, 2015 document request he attaches as his Exhibit 1.
Interestingly, this PCSO 6-4-15 records request response is the EXACT same document that proved to
Mr. McLynas that a Stingray HAD in fact been used on October 30, 2013 to track him and tap his phone
and lead to a search of his premises. If the same records response Rozelle helped prepare reveals to Mr.
McLynas that a Stingray tracking device HAD been used, how is it possible for Rozelle to now claim that
three months later he does not know that a Stingray was used on McLynas when he himself helped
prepared the 6-4-15 PCSO response admitting it had been usd? The answer is, he cant.
Within the 5-24-15 McLynas document request (Rozelles Exhibit 1), the first thing McLynas asks for
was basically any documentation that PCSO had possession of that exhibited whether PCSO had or used
a Stingray or any other form of Cell Site Simulator. The June 4, 2015 PCSO response basically stated
that the requested documents did in fact exist, but that they were not available as a public record at this
time, it is exempt from disclosure. This made it quite clear that PCSO did in fact possess a Stingray or
similar device, otherwise the response would have been no records responsive. Paul Rozelle assisted in
creating this exact response.
Within the same 5-24-15 McLynas document request (Rozelles Exhibit 1), the second set of documents
McLynas asked for was basically if the PCSO had any documentation that PCSO had ever used a
Stingray or any other form of Cell Site Simulator on McLynas. Again, PCSO response basically stated
that the requested documents did in fact exist, but that they were not available as a public record at this
time and again it is exempt from disclosure. This again makes it quite clear that PCSO did in fact
possess a Stingray or similar device and did in fact use it against McLynas or their response would
have been no records responsive. Meaning, Rozelle KNEW on or before 6-4-15 that a Stingray HAD
been used against McLynas and also who at his department had the documentation.
Within the same 5-24-15 McLynas document request (Rozelles Exhibit 1), the third set of documents
McLynas asked for was any application for warrant requested by the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office
for any surveillance or any form of monitoring for James McLynas. The PCSO response (Rozelle
Exhibit 1) that Rozelle himself helped write, was no records responsive. So far, PCSO claims they
have records for the first two requests from McLynas, but no records for the warrant application
question. If they knew that they had used a Stingray on McLynas but those records were exempt, then
Rozelle knew who in the PCSO would have used it, a warrant WOULD have been required, the
documents would exist and he would know where. As senior associate counsel for the PCSO, he would

be intimately familiar with not only the warrant process, but WHO would be in charge of that process so
he could ASK about the warrant documents. As senior associate counsel for a law enforcement agency,
Rozelle should also be very familiar with the 4th amendment requirements to obtain a warrant for highly
invasive Stingray tracking/phone tapping including the Florida Supreme Court ruling. [8] Rozelle also
was familiar with the policies and practice of having PCSO deputies go to the State Attorneys Office to
fill out the bogus Pen Register Applications so that they would not be held by the PCSO, even though
they were signed by a PCSO employee and still subject to PCSO records requests. [2] [25][26]
According to Rozelles own Response he states that the PCSO did get a warrant and that this
warrant document was the same exact document that PCSO Deputy Wroe testified in his deposition [2]
that he brought back from the SAO and scanned, filed (and then shredded) into the PCSO SCISS system
under McLynas name, but a new fake report number. [3][16]
Within the fourth item requested by McLynas in his 5-24-15 public records request was Any Application
for any form of warrant for any purpose or reason related to James McLynas from any time frame.
Again, the PCSO response drafted with the assistance of Paul Rozelle, the PCSO claimed no records
responsive. In his Response, Rozelle clearly stated that a warrant was applied for and used. PCSO
Deputy Matthew Wroe testified in his deposition that he brought the Order back from the State
Attorneys Office and entered it into ACISS and then shredded it on 10-29-13. [2] [25] The ACISS report
completed by Deputy Wroe states the same thing and the Order and the details of the Stingray operation
are included in the ACISS report tied to James McLynas name. [3] All Rozelle would have to have done
is open up ACISS and type in McLynas and the Stingray documents would have appeared on his
screen. Unless of course PCSO had another internal policy that excluded Stingray reports from ACISS
search parameters or they deleted these fake ACISS reports from records queries. (do they?)
It was through the content and language of the PCSOs 6-4-15 response to the McLynas 5-24-15 public
records request, (drafted with the assistance of PCSO legal counsel Paul Rozelle by his own admission)
that McLynas received clear confirmation that PCSO had in fact used a Stingray on him on 10-30-13.
Therefore, Paul Rozelle cannot claim that he was unaware of the Stingray usage on McLynas when he
made his intentionally false statements to attorney Jerry Theophilopoulos on September 8, 2015.
The Lies, Deceptions and Misrepresentations of Paul Rozelle Continue
Within Paul Rozelles response on the first page in the second paragraph Rozelle states the PCSOs
public records unit contacted me for advice on the response to Mr. McLynas request. The public
records department told me that their search of the PCSOs records did not reveal a warrant or
warrant application for the use of a cell site stimulator on Mr. McLynas These statements are very
revealing for not only what they say, but also what they do NOT say.
Deception 1: Paul Rozelle admits in his Response on page 5, 5th paragraph that I told Mr.
Theophilopoulos that no such documents existed regarding the use of a cell site stimulator on Mr.
McLynas because the PCSO did not use any such technology on Mr. McLynas. Rozelle did not
elaborate on who lied to him and told him that a Stingray had NOT been used on McLynas or how he
determined that to be a fact when he knew he just needed to call the TOU and ask.

Rozelles statements are very interesting because sometime between when Mr. McLynas submitted his
5-24-15 document request and the PCSOs response was created and sent on 6-4-15, Paul Rozelle had
assisted the PCSO records department in drafting that response which virtually admitted that a
Stingray HAD been used on Mr. McLynas. This proves without a doubt that Rozelle KNEW three
months before he had made those false statements to Jerry that a Stingray had been used on McLynas.
Furthermore, Rozelles statements indicate an affirmative statement that NO Stingray was used, and
NO documents exist, rather than a I dont know if they do, or I am not sure if they do, I will
check. This clearly indicates that he personally had previously researched and checked himself if that
statement was true. However, Rozelle claims in his Response that he didnt check until later that
same day when he returned to the PCSO, but not until AFTER he made those false affirmative
statements. Didnt he check with the PCSO Tactical Operations Unit (TOU) back when he was
assisting the records department in their 6-4-15 response to McLynas 5-24-15 records request, and if
not why not? Why did he have the records department tell McLynas that no records existed when a
simple call to the TOU would have proven that the records did exist?
Deception 2: Paul Rozelle stated that The public records department told me that their search of the
PCSOs records did not reveal a warrant or warrant application for the use of a cell site stimulator on
Mr. McLynas This is a blatant deception for numerous reasons including;
1. Rozelles Response on page 4, first paragraph, Rozelle states After leaving the courthouse (the
same day he told Jerry the Stingray documents did not exist), I called the PCSOs Tactical
Operations Unit (TOU). TOU is the unit in the PCSO that has control of the cell site simulator.
The purpose of my call was to inform the sergeant in charge of TOU that a court order had
granted a motion to compel the State to produce documents related to the cell site simulator, to
let them know the court order would be forthcoming, and to offer my assistance should they
have any questions about the order. It was on that phone call that I learned the cell site
simulator was used to locate Mr. McLynas, that a warrant had been applied for to use the cell
site simulator, and that a warrant had issued for its use This evidences that;
a) Rozelle knew exactly who he needed to call to determine if a Stingray had been used or if
a warrant had been applied for and issued, yet kept this information from McLynas.
b) Rozelle had an affirmative duty to do a good faith due diligence search for the Stingray
and warrant documents back when the records department contacted him for his
assistance in answering McLynas 5-24-15 records request, but intentionally refused to
divulge to the records department that he knew to contact the TOU Sergeant to obtain
those records and provide them to McLynas or at the least acknowledge that they existed
and claimed an exemption.
c) Rozelle and the PCSO also had a duty to provide ALL documents related to the
investigation and arrest of McLynas to the State Attorney so that the SAO could in turn
disclose those to Defendant McLynas and his attorney as required under Brady, especially
the electronic surveillance documents related to the Stingray usage.
d) Paul Rozelle was intimately familiar with the PCSOs policy of having deputies go over to
the State Attorneys office to fill out Stingray Applications [1] The state attorney would
then claim to keep the application, even though it was drafted and signed by a PCSO
employee and used in an ongoing investigation by the PCSO and thus it was clearly a
PCSO document in the PCSOs possession and control. [2] PCSO and their legal
department implemented an intentional policy to do these warrant papers at the State

e)

f)

g)

h)

Attorneys office for the specific purpose of keeping them out of the view of the PCSO
records department. [25][26] Why wouldnt the PCSOs own legal department be assisting
with these applications? Plausible deniability is why. Rozelle would have known about
this process thus making his statements an intentional lie. [24]
The PCSO, with the full knowledge and most assuredly the assistance of the PCSO legal
department and even Paul Rozelle, put into place a series of procedures to bury and hide
documents related to the PCSOs illegal and unconstitutional use of Stingray
tracking/wiretapping devices including naming the Application for the Subpoena or the
Application for the warrant for Stingray usage to be named merely an Application
instead of a Motion for Subpoena, Affidavit for Warrant, or some other clear and
concise name so that it would not pull up in any document search or would appear
innocuous on any docket. [1] [24]
The State Attorney would then request that it be sealed so that the PCSO could claim
they did not have access to it. [1] PCSOs lead counsel Shannon Lockheart also told
McLynas that just transferring the PCSO documents to the State Attorneys Office legally
allowed her to refuse to provide the documents and to claim that no such document
existed. [10] However, this does not relieve the PCSO of its duty to maintain the record,
acknowledge its existence under a records request or a Motion to Compel and to provide
those documents rather than knowingly and intentionally claiming that no records
responsive or lying to defense counsel that they even exist. [25][26] This also does not
relieve either the PCSO or the SAO of their obligations to disclose the Application or
court order under Brady. Florida law prohibits any governmental agency to refuse to allow
access to public records on the grounds that the requested documents are in the possession
of another agency.[4][24][25] This is especially true if the agency intentionally transferred
these records just to hide the documents from public access as in the case of the PCSO
Stingray documents. [5][25] Rozelle, Lockheart and Gualtieri are all LAWYERS and
would have known these laws and the legal obligations required by them. Pam Bondis
Sunshine Manual for Law Enforcement Agencies clarifies these very issues as well. [18]
This conduct is an intentional and willful deception by PCSO and their legal department
including Paul Rozelle in violation of both Title X, Chapter 119, Brady disclosure
requirements and the Rules of Criminal procedure. James McLynas has also filed a public
records lawsuit against Sheriff Gualtieri and the PCSO for their continued failure and
refusal to provide documents and lying about the existence of documents.[6] As an
example of how far the PCSO is willing to go to defend an indefensible position, Paul
Rozelle himself answered the McLynas records lawsuit and one of his affirmative
defenses is that the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office does not exist and therefore cannot be
sued. This is the type of lawyer who we are dealing with in this BAR complaint
After the PCSO and the State Attorney Bernie McCabe conspired to hide the Stingray
documents from public view [21][22][26], they then embarked on a campaign to
knowingly and intentionally fail to disclose both the documents and the Stingray usage to
defense attorneys in criminal cases where a Stingray had been deployed. State Attorney
Bernie McCabe would instruct their Assistant State Attorneys to LIE or fudge mandatory
Brady disclosure statements so that the document would not declare that electronic
surveillance documents did NOT exist, but also failed to turn them over to Defense
counsel. [7] In this example of the McLynas Brady document, two check marks from

other categories extend over the electronic surveillance section of the form to
intentionally deceive Defendants and their lawyers. [7] The SAO also fails to put the
actual criminal case number on the document or any signature of who prepared it in an
attempt to avoid prosecution of this intentionally unethical and illegal action. [7]
i) PCSO State Attorney Bernie McCabe and the PCSO would also conspire to not allow
depositions to take place that included PCSO deputies involved with these bogus Stingray
Applications unless the State Attorney had their Stingray Application Specialist
Gregory Groger defending and representing the PCSO deputy in the deposition.[2]
Groger was NOT prosecuting the McLynas cases and did NOT represent the PCSO or
Deputy Wroe, but Groger was permitted to sit in and interfere in the deposition
questioning of Deputy Wroe and represent him and objected and instructed Wroe NOT to
answer questions about the Stingray usage on several occasions. This appeared to be a
conflict of interest since Groger was the exact Assistant State Attorney who assisted PCSO
Deputy Wroe in preparing the fraudulent Affidavit against James McLynas and then
concealed it at the SAO office. Groger is also guilty of intentionally violating Brady by
concealing electronic surveillance from Defendants and their attorneys, yet he blocked
questions in the deposition that would have revealed his direct criminal involvement.
When the McLynas case was being prosecuted, Groger (a 6 th circuit Assistant State
Attorney) failed to ensure that the Application was a part of the Brady disclosure
provided to the McLynas defense team. NONE of this concealment is accidental.
j) The Florida Supreme Court clearly ruled that any Stingray usage would require a warrant,
and clearly the entire warrant and surveillance process would be required by law to be
disclosed to the Defendants and their attorneys in a criminal action under Brady. [8]
k) There are now numerous cases across the country where an illegal use of a Stingray
without an actual warrant caused entire cases to be dismissed out because of the evidence
obtained using the Stingray was obtained in violation of the 4th amendment rights of the
people. [14]
l) Then there are numerous other cases that are being dismissed to prevent defendants from
obtaining Stingray documents because those Defendants filed Motions to Compel and are
getting close to obtaining the concealed Stingray documents they are entitled to in their
cases. [9] This is EXACTLY what happened in the first McLynas case. On the exact same
day and at the exact same moment that the Order was filed ordering the SAO and the
PCSO to turn over the Stingray documents, (which was also the same day the documents
were due by that court order) a Nolle Prosse was also filed ending the case and preventing
McLynas from obtaining the court ordered documents in that case. All of this proves that
a conspiracy exists between the PCSO and the State Attorney to hide, obfuscate and
withhold Stingray documents from Defendants regarding the warrantless searches and
violations of Defendants 4th amendment rights that Defendants are entitled to in their
defense under Brady. This could not occur without BOTH agencys cooperation.
m) However, 6th Circuit State Attorney Bernie McCabe feels that "We know they got a
defendant arrested. Really, I don't know that I'm terribly concerned how they found
(the suspect)," McCabe said. "That's not of evidentiary value. They committed
whatever they're charged with committing before that." [20] State Attorney Bernie
McCabe is literally stating he is not too concerned with the 4 th Amendment as long as they

can nail the person they are looking for. This is reprehensible behavior for a State
Attorney.
Deception 3: PCSO and Rozelle as senior associate counsel to the PCSO had implemented a series
of unethical and illegal road blocks to prevent compliance with not only public records requests
related to Stingray documents, but also to hide such documents from Defendants and their lawyers in
violation of Brady disclosure and due process legal rights of these defendants. Some of these deceptive
policies and practices include;
a. PCSO would funnel all Stingray usage through its Tactical Operations Unit or Technical
Operations Unit (TOU) as detailed in Paul Rozelles Response and Wroes depo. [2]
b. These TOU PCSO deputies were instructed to go over to the State Attorneys Office to fill
out Stingray Applications on a SAO computer with the help of Assistant State Attorney
Gregory Groger in order to conceal the Stingray records from the public. [1] [2] The
application and the Order were both pre-filled out forms that included pre-written
lies about the persons they sought to target. [17] The PCSO deputy would then NOT take
a copy of the Application back to the PCSO even though HE was the author and the
PCSO created and owned the document so that the PCSO records department would not
be able to find or access the Application if a records request was made as detailed in
Deputy Wroes deposition. [2] This may be one reason why the when the Records
department contacted Paul Rozelle for assistance in handling McLynas 5-24-15
document request Rozelle CLAIMED they were unable to find any warrant applications.
Rozelle KNEW about this PCSO policy but failed to inform the records department about
the missing application and knowingly and intentionally instructed the records
department to inform McLynas that there were no records responsive when Rozelle
knew exactly where those PCSO records were located at the State Attorneys office with
ASA Gregory Groger. (I have a public records request pending for emails between Groger
and Rozelle and will turn those over to the BAR upon request once received)
c. The PCSO deputy WOULD take a copy of the Order back to the PCSO per Deputy
Matthew Wroes deposition. [2] This is the warrant Paul Rozelle was referencing in his
Response that he claimed in that response was NOT in possession of the PCSO. In
Wroes deposition Wroe clearly states that the Order that Rozelle claimed did not exist
was in fact created by a PCSO deputy (Wroe) and was in fact in the possession of the
PCSO and entered into the PCSOs ACISS system. [3] The Stingray order could have
easily been accessed through a query by Rozelle or the PCSO records department. If the
supposed warrant existed, then clearly the Application for that warrant would also
exist and both the PCSO, the SAO and Rozelle would have had a duty to produce it.[25]
d. While the PCSO deputy would then enter the Stingray Order into the PCSO ACISS
system, the PCSO legal department had them create an entirely separate and new police
report and number to keep the Stingray documents from being discovered within the
report from the actual investigation. [2] This is a complete deviation from PCSO policy
with the sole intent of keeping Stingray documents secret from those who the Stingray is
illegally used to spy on and track. When the copy of the ACISS report was finally
produced in the second case, the ACISS report number was redacted so that we would not
be able to see that they had created an entirely new case number within ACISS to conceal
the illegal Stingray usage. [3]

e. PCSO and SAO Groger would then hide and prevent these hidden ACISS police reports
from being accessed by public records requests and from Defense attorneys by literally
claiming that the actual ACISS REPORT NUMBER was privileged information and
would then illegally redact that report number from copies obtained by court order. [16]
This was done to prevent others from finding out about the intentionally deceptive and
illegal practice the PCSO and SAO had put in place to hide Stingray use from the public.
f. A police report number in and of itself is NOT privileged information and there exists NO
such exemption under Florida Open Records laws Title X, Chapter 119, [19] and certainly
no such exemption would exist under the Criminal Rules of Procedure and the laws of
Disclosure and Discover, especially Brady. [4][5]
Deception 4: Within Rozelles Response, he repeatedly references the Warrant that he claims was
applied for in order for the PCSO to legally use a Stingray tracking/wiretapping device on McLynas.
There is no such warrant and there never was. It is my opinion that Paul Rozelle is trying to cover his
tracks for being unethically, illegally and intentionally involved with the extreme repeated violations of
citizens 4th amendment rights, repeated intentional violations of Title X, Chapter 119 and conspiring with
the State Attorneys office to intentionally violate Brady requirements by assisting and cooperating in
such activity on a regular basis. If we examine the statements made by Paul Rozelle in his Response he
falsely states the following;
a) Page 4, 2nd paragraph; that a warrant had been applied for to use the cell site
simulator, and that a warrant had issued for its use. I confirmed that the PCSO did not
have and never had a copy of the warrant application. I learned that TOU Detective
Matthew Wroe, went to the State Attorneys Office for their assistance to obtain the
warrant I learned that the warrant application was created at the State Attorneys
Office by the Assistant State Attorney. I learned that the State had the only copy of the
warrant and application. I learned that the State moved to seal the warrant which was
granted.
Again, there are numerous lies, misstatements of facts and intentional deception to the BAR in Mr.
Rozelles Response statements. These include the following;
1. The Application written signed and sworn to by Deputy Matthew Wroe was for a PEN
REGISTER, and NOT for any type of warrant as required by law. [1] Paul Rozelle, being
Senior Associate Counsel for a Sheriffs office clearly should and does know the difference
between a Pen Register requiring a phone company to turn over records and a Probable Cause
warrant to allow the PCSO to electronically track and wiretap a suspect. He also knows that
those examining the BAR complaint would know the difference as well and he likely didnt want
the BAR asking questions about why the PCSOs activity is in direct conflict with Florida
Supreme Court Rulings that require a WARRANT and Probable cause to use a Stingray tracking
device. [8]
2. Contrary to what Paul Rozelle states in his Response, there never was a warrant of any type
issued in the case. There was a Pen Register and Trap and Trace Order issued to a phone
company, but this subpoena does not give the PCSO ANY LEGAL RIGHT TO SURVEIL
MCLYNAS, TRACK HIM INSIDE HIS HOME AND TAP HIS PHONE. Rozelle, Sheriff
Gualtieri and State Attorney Bernie McCabe all routinely lie about the power and authority of

these court orders when questioned about their legality and the use of a Stingray
tracking/phone-taping device. [21][22]
3. PCSO Deputy Wroe within his hidden ACISS reports with the report numbers redacted even
described the Application he himself filed as follows; I met with assistant State Attorney
Groger to request a court order authorizing the installation and use of a dialed number
recorder Assistant State Attorney Groger and I drafted an affidavit and order and then
presented them to Judge McGrady. I obtained a true copy of the courts order. The order was
sent to T-Mobile and the dialed recorder was made active. [3] These statements make it clear
that the application filed by PCSO Deputy Wroe was NOT a warrant and in fact was no more
than a court order ordering T-Mobile to provide PCSO with McLynas phone identifying
information and general use location so that the PCSO could illegally use the Stingray
tracking/wiretapping device on him without a warrant. Rozelle and the PCSO then implemented
a plan to prevent McLynas from finding out (and everyone else too [21][22]) that included
Rozelle, Lockheart, Gualtieri, Mccabe, the State Attorneys Office and the PCSO records
department ALL conspiring and lying about Stingray warrants, court orders and documents.
PCSO does this illegally dozens of times a month to unsuspecting citizens which is why Bernie
McCabe, the PCSO and Paul Rozelle will go through so much trouble and lie like Paul Rozelle
did to keep it a big secret so the illegal abuse can continue.
4. A letter was sent to Paul Rozelle by email on April 28, 2016 [23], asking Rozelle to please
explain how the Application used to obtain the Pen Register Trap and Trace Order was in
any way a probable cause warrant that would allow the Stingray tracking and wiretapping
device to be used and used inside the McLynas home in violation of the Florida Supreme Court
ruling. [8] Rozelle did not respond.
5. Rozelle states in his Response that I learned that the warrant application was created at the
State Attorneys Office by the Assistant State Attorney. I learned that the State had the only
copy of the warrant and application. This of course in another lie from Rozelle to cover his
tracks because Deputy Wroe testified that there WAS another copy of the warrant and that he
himself brought it back to the PCSO from the SAOs office and personally entered it into the
PCSOs ACISS system and then shredded the original. [2][3] That means that Rozelle had finger
tip access to it at any time by merely searching the ACISS system using McLynas as a query.
Another bold faced lie by senior associate counsel Paul Rozelle is now exposed.
Deception 5: Paul Rozelle further lies to the BAR on page 5 of his Response by listing four bullet
points with the preface that The remaining allegations in the McLynas BAR complaint are baseless
and false, without any factual support. This is the standard PCSO statement when anyone has proof of
fraud, corruption or malfeasance of any member of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office. When anyone at
the PCSO makes that blanket dismissive statement you can be sure that the accusations are factual just as
they are in this instance as proven by the following;
Item One: Paul Rozelle states that the first of four statements made by McLynas is baseless and false,
without any factual support; The documents evidence the illegal use of a Stingray tracking device on
Defendant James McLynas without the required warrant. This of course is true and factual statement
by McLynas and another lie and false statement by Paul Rozelle that the statements made by McLynas are
baseless and false, without any factual support and here is the evidence to prove it;

1. The Supreme Court of Florida clearly ruled that a) a stingray device is so invasive that is
penetrates the protections of the home, taps a telephone line and constitutes a violation of the
expectation of privacy and thus requires an actual warrant with a clear showing of probable
cause for such warrant to be issued. [8] As an attorney for a law enforcement agency, Paul
Rozelle would be very familiar with this ruling.
2. U.S. Code Title 18 Part II Chapter 206 3123 18 U.S. Code 3123 - Issuance of an
order for a pen register or a trap and trace device states;
that the State law enforcement or investigative officer has certified to the court that the
information likely to be obtained by such installation and use is relevant to an ongoing
criminal investigation This is the code under which SAO Groger and PCSO Deputy Wroe
filed the Application for the Pen Register/Trap and Trace order from the 6 th Circuit Court
against James McLynas. PCSO Deputy Wroe LIED within the Application and claimed
under oath that McLynas was using his phone for a criminal purpose[1] as the false basis for
obtaining the Trap and Trace order, but admitted in his deposition that the accusation that
McLynas was using his phone for a criminal purpose was not true and is just part of the
form that SAO Groger has him fill out so that the judge will sign it. PCSO Wroe also
admitted that he had no factual information that McLynas was using his phone for a criminal
purpose and nobody had told him that about McLynas either, but he signed a sworn affidavit
that McLynas was. [17] Without the false accusation by Deputy Wroe, the Application
should have failed and the judge should have refused to sign it, however, they typically place
these orders on the desk in front of a judge they know wont even read them and has no idea
what he is even signing but will sign anything they put in front of him. Wroe testified it was
signed by McGrady, known for his rubber stamping police requests, but it was signed by
retiring 75yo Judge Peters, also known for signing anything put before him by LEO. Not
being able to find someone is not a crime being committed by the person they cannot find
3. Furthermore, Bernie McCabe himself stated that "We know they got a defendant arrested.
Really, I don't know that I'm terribly concerned how they found (the suspect)," McCabe
said. "That's not of evidentiary value. They committed whatever they're charged with
committing before that." [20] Bernie McCabe is essentially stating that the Stingray action is
completely separate and apart from the criminal investigation and therefore, there can be no
relevancy to an ongoing investigation, and thus, even a Pen Register would fail to issue
based of a lack of investigative relevancy required for a Pen Register order. This may also
be supported by the fact that a separate ACISS report number is also created when a Stingray
is used. Yet, Sheriff Gualtieri appears to take the exact opposite approach in his statements
within the exact same article [20] Gualtieri, a lawyer, said the order shows the probable
cause of the case and the 13-page application outlines the charges against McLynas. It
appears that both McCabe and Gualtieri are trying to claim both sides of the argument that a)
it is part of the case so we were entitled to the Pen Register, but when they illegally slip in the
Stingray tracking/wiretapping device use, all of the sudden it is a separate case with no
evidentiary value. Fortunately however, Brady and the rules of Criminal Procedure prevent
the State and the Sheriff from deciding for the defense what evidence is relevant or not and
prevents them from being able to only turning over the evidence THEY feel is relevant like
they tried to do to McLynas. Brady requires the disclosure of ALL electronic surveillance.
4. The PCSO ACISS report filed by deputy Matthew Wroe clearly describes the affidavit and
order that he and ASA Groger filed on 10-29-13 as a court order authorizing the

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

installation and use of a dialed number recorder which is clearly not a warrant and does
NOT allow for ANY surveillance to be conducted by the PCSO and never mentions use of a
Stingray tracking and phone tapping device. [3][20]
The order was sent to T-Mobile because all it did was order the phone company to install a
trap and trace device and T-Mobile responded to what they termed as a Subpoena. [11] Also,
subpoenas can be faxed, warrants must be served. The order was faxed.
Paul Rozelle blatantly lied to the BAR in the investigation of a complaint claiming that he and
the PCSO had obtained a legal WARRANT to allow the Stingray tracking/wiretapping
device to be used on McLynas when that clearly was not the case.
It is a Federal Crime to use a Stingray tracking/phone tapping device without a warrant
because a Stingray tracking device intercepts ALL communications between the subjects
phone and the phone service provider. (and everyone elses within a quarter mile radius)
Stingray devices also violate FCC rules by illegally intercepting airwaves and signals assigned
to a phone corporation. The Stingray device can also record calls, save texts, emails and
internet searches. Clearly this type of device cannot be used without a warrant under U.S.
Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 119 2518 18 U.S. Code 2518 - Procedure for
interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. In order to obtain a warrant for a
phone tapping device Code 2518 requires a sworn affidavit proving the following; (b) a
full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to
justify his belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular
offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (ii) except as provided in
subsection (11), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which
or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the
type of communications sought to be intercepted, (iv) the identity of the person, if known,
committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and (c) a full and
complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and
failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.
The PCSO and the SAO did NOT file the above facts on McLynas in any warrant procedure.
PCSO even went so far as to illegally use the Stingray tracking device to track McLynas all
the way to Tampa, Hillsborough county, well outside their jurisdiction. PCSO would never be
granted a warrant that gave them authority to do ANYTHING in a neighboring county.
A Stingray tracking device is just that, a tracking device. According to (C) Warrant for a
Tracking Device. A tracking-device warrant must identify the person or property to be
tracked, designate the magistrate judge to whom it must be returned, and specify a
reasonable length of time that the device may be used. The PCSO/SAO Application does
no such thing and clearly does not meet this high standard required. [1]
Stingray also has a high likelihood of surveilling someone within their home and this fact was
a major point used by the Florida Supreme Court in their ruling that a Stingray device requires
a warrant. [8] A high level of probable cause of a MAJOR crime, as well as an affidavit
swearing and affirming that all other methods have been tried and all other options open are
more dangerous before a court is to allow a warrant for surveillance within someones home.
Since a Stingray device literally intercepts ALL incoming and outgoing calls, texts, emails and
internet searches, it falls under a wiretapping device. PCSO did not get any such wiretapping
permission on McLynas as required by both Federal and State law.

12. At no point in time has the PCSO, Paul Rozelle, ASA Groger, Bernie McCabe or any other
person provided proof and documentation that they had filed for or obtained a probable cause
warrant allowing the use of a tracking device, the wiretapping of McLynas phone or in home
surveillance of the McLynas residence. Therefore, despite Rozelles lies and accusations that
McLynas statements are false, they remain true and undisputed by the facts and
documentation in this case and the PCSO did NOT obtain a warrant and thus used the Stingray
tracking/wiretapping device illegally on McLynas and then tried (and are still trying) to
intentionally hide the evidence of what they did.
Item Two: Paul Rozelle states that the second of four statements made by McLynas is baseless and false,
without any factual support; On the tenth day, when the documents were due by the court order, the
charges were dropped so that they did not have to turn over the documents.
1. Case No. 1317235CFANO On September 8, 2015 the court ordered the State Attorney to turn
over the Stingray documents, including those within the PCSOs possession within 15 days which
would have been on September 23, 2015. Without any additional motions, finding of new
evidence, witness testimony or facts, the State Attorney dismissed the charges. The only factor for
dismissing the charges on that day was the requirement to turn over the Stingray documents. On
September 24, 2015, both the Order to turn over the Stingray documents AND the Nolle Prosse
were filed at the exact same time and on the exact same day. That is not a coincidence.
2. McLynas and his attorney Jerry Theophilopoulos were able to finally obtain these same Stingray
documents in the second false arrest case of McLynas by filing for an In Camera Review rather
than a Motion to Compel which forced the SAO to turn over the documents to the judge
immediately. That did not allow enough time for the SAO to drop the charges. Once the Stingray
documents were in the judges hands, he reviewed them and saw no legitimate reason to allow the
SAO to continue to withhold the documents from the defense and they were finally handed over.
Once the Stingray documents were in hand, several members of the State Attorneys Office told
Jerry Theophilopoulos that the SAO was very angry that McLynas finally got the Stingray
documents and based on that anger McCabe would do everything in his power to convict
McLynas of the remaining false charges. They persisted until a Motion to Dismiss was filed. [28]
3. It is widely reported that the FBI and Harris Corporation, (the manufacturers of the Stingray
device) require police agencies to sign and agree to a Non-Disclosure agreement in order to be
permitted to use the technology even to the point of dismissing criminal cases if the disclosure of
the Stingray is imminent. [12] That is exactly what occurred within this case with McLynas
despite Rozelles contention that it did not. The PCSO Nondisclosure makes this clear. [21][22]
4. Rozelle is well aware of the existence of the Harris Corporation Non-Disclosure agreement
signed by the Pinellas County Sheriff. Rozelle is also well aware of the requirements of the FBI
while using Stingray to not allow Stingray documents to be disclosed and the lengths police
departments go to protect and hide Stingray use. [13] The Pinellas County Sheriffs Department
is actively involved in these same measures to prevent the disclosure of Stingray documents so
they use a myriad of excuses by the PCSO and Rozelle including 1) no records exist, 2) someone
else had the documents, 3) some lowly clerk told me we didnt have them, 4) the court order
didnt include us, 5) Brady? Whose Brady? These and countless other excuses are all based on the
intention of the PCSO to continue to use Stingray against the people of Pinellas County without
bothering to get those pesky warrants.

Item Three: Paul Rozelle states that the third of four statements made by McLynas is baseless and false,
without any factual support; Attorney Rozelle was also instrumental in working with the State
Attorneys Office to violate Brady law by refusing to either acknowledge the existence of, or turn over
the Stingray documents required by Brady in all criminal cases
1. In this case, the State Attorney AND the PCSO BOTH worked to prepare and file the Pen
Register Affidavit. [2] When the PCSO submitted its documents to the State Attorney for the
bogus prosecution of McLynas PCSO intentionally did NOT include the Order that Deputy
Wroe admitted he scanned into ACISS and then shredded. [2] PCSO also did not turn over the
ACISS reports outlining the Stingray usage when they are required by Brady to do so. [3]
2. We now know that the PCSO does archive and store both Stingray Pen Register orders, as
well as ACISS reports outlining the measures PCSO, the TOU and their fugitive arrest squad
(that uses the Stingray device) go through to trace and track someones phone using a Stingray.
[3] All of the investigators (McLean) and the arresting officers all knew about the Stingray use
because the lead investigator (McLean) had requested that Deputy Wroe obtain the Pen
Register Order and McLean and Wroe were both present at the McLynas home while Stingray
was being used.[3] Deputy Wroe even admitted in his deposition that he falsified the ACISS
report that he had seen McLynas through the window to build a false basis for testifying that
there was an alternative means of obtaining the evidence as outlined in the Stingray nondisclosure agreement. [2][ 13][15][25] They had to provide another means for finding
McLynas that did not mention Stingray, so Wroe falsely testified that he had physically seen
McLynas through the homes windows when the windows in the McLynas home would have
made that literally impossible. Wroe admits he did not see McLynas in his deposition. [2]
3. One way to prove if the McLynas statement was true would be to require Paul Rozelle to
provide proof that Stingray ACISS reports and Pen Register orders were provided to the State
Attorney and Defense attorneys in all other Stingray cases. My guess is that there has never
been a single voluntary Brady release of such documents thus proving the McLynas statement
is true. As senior associate counsel Paul Rozelle would be intimately familiar with those
processes. If no Stingray documents were ever provided to the SAO, then violation is policy.
4. The PCSO then refused to produce the Stingray documents when McLynas requested them and
Rozelle was instrumental in assisting the records department in lying to McLynas about there
being NO records responsive when there clearly was. [3] Rozelle had access to the ACISS
system at the PCSO and all he or the records department had to do was type in McLynas and
the reports completed by Deputy Wroe would have popped up on the screen along with the
Order Wroe scanned and then shredded and entered into the ACISS system. [2] It is not
believable that the Tactical Operations Unit, a fifteen member arrest team using Stingray and
tracking McLynas to Tampa and back including a helicopter would leave no trace and no
records for Rozelle to find. Wroes filed his first had account of using the Stingray on McLynas
within the ACISS system under McLynas same. [2][3] Rozelle lied again.
5. It is also not believable that the records department received a simple request for documents
under Title X, Chapter 119 and the first thing they needed to do was to call Paul Rozelle
senior associate Counsel for direction on how to respond unless that was what they were told
to do only when a Stingray document request was made.
6. It is also not a coincidence that the State Attorney also decided to independently lie to Mr.
McLynas and his attorney by failing to abide by Brady, falsifying the Brady disclosure

documents and not disclosing the Stingray use they KNEW existed because Assistant State
Attorney Groger helped create the documents, filed them, and then stored them on his
computer. [7] The SAO and PCSO were in this together from the beginning and could not have
done so without full cooperation from both agencies with each other. It would not surprise me
if the FBI/Harris non-disclosure was signed by State Attorney Bernie McCabe as well.
7. For Rozelles statements to be true, the State Attorney Bernie McCabe, ASA Gregory Groger,
PCSOs entire Technical Operations Unit, the PCSOs Fugitive Squad that uses the Stingray,
the PCSO Records Department, the FBI, the Harris Corporation and countless SAO and PCSO
employees were all merely making errors and mistakes that ALL culminated in NO Stingray
documents being provided anywhere that the law required them to be provided in this case or
any other. Or, they all conspired together to violate Title X, Chapter 119 and Brady as they
clearly set out to do in the FBI/Harris Corp nondisclosure agreement. [25]
8. And last but not least, for Rozelles statements to be true, senior associate counsel Paul Rozelle
would have to have been kept in the dark about ALL of these policies and practices and
nondisclosure agreements when he lied to Jerry Theophilopoulos on September 8, 2015.
Item Four: Paul Rozelle states that this fourth following statement made by McLynas is baseless and
false, without any factual support; The Stingray documents were in the possession and legal control of
the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office on 9-8-15
1. This has already been proven factual by virtue of PCSO Deputy Matthew Wroes deposition
[2] where he stated A copy of the Order would be kept, yes sir. Because a copy of the order
would have to be sent to the cell phone company for them to actually, you know, obviously
make it active. theyre scanned into our ACIS reporting system and they are maintained
there. Im not sure if the hard copy is kept sir, or if its actually shredded after its scanned.
But the State of course keeps a copy as well.
Q: So there is in the .. Is it in the ACISS? Wroe: Yes
2. Stingray documents also include the ACISS reports detailing the deployment of the Stingray
device that were clearly IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PCSO ON 9-8-15 and had been
there since they were filed on 11-1-13 by PCSO Deputy Wroe.
All four of the statements that Pinellas County Sheriffs senior associate counsel Paul Rozelle has now
told the Florida BAR as an officer of the court arebaseless and false, without any factual support made
by McLynas, are actually true and factually proven to be true. Rozelles false accusations against
McLynas are just a continuation of hundreds of false statements, false reports, false charges and false
statements and testimony made by the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office, the SAO, Sheriff Gualtieri and
now Paul Rozelle in an effort to intimidate, frighten, maliciously prosecute and silence Mr. McLynas.
Summation
When the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office decides to violate someones 4 th Amendment rights and use a
Stingray tracking/wiretapping device against a Pinellas County Citizen, they start out by using a form
that includes lies about the subject using his phone for criminal purposes to create a fake probable
cause. [1][17] The State Attorney and the PCSO then has the PCSO deputy go to the SAOs office to fill
in the blanks on the form created by the SAO and file it using the SAOs computer to keep the
Application out of the PCSO computers.[2] (the first step in concealment)

In what would normally be titled a Motion for Subpeona or an Affidavit for Warrant, the SAO creates
an innocuous affidavit titled an Application so that it will not reveal the intent of the document or come
up during docket searches. [1] The SAO will then file it using either no court docket number, or a fake
court docket number and request that the document be sealed to further prevent it from being seen, even
though the SAO would be legally required to produce a copy to any criminal defendant under Brady or at
least acknowledge its existence. [1] When the case is finally filed, the SAO will make sure that the SAOs
initial legal filing in that case is not tied to the new criminal case number issued to prosecute the case so
that this filing will not appear on any of the case dockets. The PCSO does the same under ACISS. [3]
Of course, the SAO never produces Stingray applications to anyone as they are required to do under
Brady nor do they disclose its existence to any defense attorneys, even though there are evidentiary rules
to exclude evidence that do clearly apply to these documents. Both the PCSO and the SAO both conceal
the documents from the Defendants. The Application does not contain ANY language regarding the
intended Stingray use or the intention of the PCSO to conduct any surveillance and neither does the
Order. [1] The SAO then passes these bogus documents to an older judge that they know will never read
them and will just rubber stamp anything they put in front of him. [2] The PCSO then conducts the illegal
and warrant-less surveillance in violation of Florida law and the Florida Supreme Court rulings. [3][8]
The PCSO then uses a fake ACISS police report number to keep it separate from the original ACISS
report for the crime they are supposedly using the Stingray to investigate [2][3], and enter the Trap and
Trace subpoena into the ACISS system and they then immediately shred the original document to hide
its existence. [2] They then dispose of the fax cover sheet used to send the subpoena to the subjects
phone company to conceal that it came from the PCSO. [2] [11]
Assistant State Attorney Gregory Groger, (who assists all PCSO employees filing these bogus
Applications) [2] will then interject himself into the depositions of these deputies even though a) he is
not handling the case where the Stingray was used, and b) does not represent the deputy which could be a
conflict of interest to protect his own criminal activity. [16] The State Attorney will help conceal this fake
ACISS fraud by preventing defense attorneys from asking questions by redacting the fake ACISS report
numbers [2][3] and then instructing the deputy to not answer questions about the fake ACISS reports by
making a false claim that police report numbers are privileged information. [16] [19]
Since Sheriff Gualtieri and Bernie McCabe both signed the non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and
the Harris Corporation (Stingray manufacturer), both agencies then embark on a campaign to violate Title
X, Chapter 119 open records laws and Brady disclosure requirements to keep the Stingray use secret even
though that violates State laws and the Rules of Criminal procedure and due process rights.[21][22][4][5]
They will even violate State Attorney Pam Bondis Sunshine Manual for Law Enforcement that very
clearly states what they are doing is illegal. [18][19][20][21][23]
If anyone requests information about the possession or use of the Stingray device, the records department
is automatically required to contact PCSO counsel for their assistance in dodging the Stingray records
request (Rozelles response) and Paul Rozelle will assist them in concealing the documents in violation of
Title X, Chapter 119. Paul Rozelle , as senior associate counsel was not only well aware of the
FBI/Harris Corp nondisclosure agreement [22], it was likely his job to see that it was adhered to. PCSO

Counsel (like Rozelle) will just inform the records department to claim everything is exempt or that no
records exist, even though they do exist and they are not exempt because of the terms of the nondisclosure
agreement. PCSO Counsel will also instruct records department employees to lie about the existence of
Applications for Stingray warrants because they implemented the policy of having them stored at the
SAOs office even though they are PCSO documents in violation of state law. [2][3][5][6]
If a Records complaint is filed, PCSO lead counsel (Lockheart) will claim that nothing was done
improperly because the warrant application was over at the State Attorneys office even though that is a
violation of open records laws too. [10] [4][5][25][26] If this causes someone to file a Title X, Chapter
119 lawsuit, the PCSO will deny anything and everything to defend and hide their conduct to the point of
even denying that the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office even exists. [6] They will then expend thousands
of dollars in taxpayer money to defend their corrupt actions and legally indefensible positions to further
conceal these Stingray documents and unethical procedures, because why not, its not their money.
If a criminal defendant requests the stingray documents that they were supposed to automatically receive
under Brady, the State Attorney will ignore the request. Bernie McCabes office will then fraudulently fill
out the Brady disclosure statement to try and make it APPEAR that the electronic surveillance question
was answered, when in fact they intentionally leave both boxes blank and hope the defense attorneys
dont notice. [7] If the Defendants lawyer files a Motion to Compel, Bernie McCabes office will fight it
tooth and nail to run up the Defendants legal bills and conceal the illegal electronic surveillance so they
can keep on using it. [14][15] Then McCabe will have PCSOs lawyer come to court to defend the
Motion to Compel and have the lawyer (in this case Rozelle) lie under oath and tell the court that the
PCSO has no such documents, when they know for a fact that this statement is premised on the untrue
position that the Assistant State Attorney standing next to them in court DOES have the documents, but
they will not volunteer this information to the court. For good measure, the senior associate counsel for
the PCSO will pull the Defendants attorney aside and lie to him about there being no Stingray documents
because no stingray was ever used, in hopes that the attorney will look no further and not press the issue.
However, in the McLynas case, you have a rare example of an actual defendant doing his own homework,
determining that a Stingray must have been used because NOBODY followed him over to Tampa, and
then making a public records request (5-24-15) asking for the Stingray documents. The PCSOs own 6-415 records response made it clear to Defendant McLynas that a Stingray was in fact used, and the PCSO
underestimated the tenacity of McLynas in not allowing the PCSO to violate his rights by conducting
illegal surveillance on him. Especially after the PCSO filed false reports, falsely arrested and maliciously
prosecuted him with the SAOs willing assistance because McLynas threatened Sheriff Gualtieri on 9-2813 that he would run for Sheriff to expose Gualtieris corruption.
Within just this one case involving the Stingray tracking device used against McLynas, every single time
the PCSO or the State Attorney had a legal obligation to turn over or disclose the documents related to the
illegal and warrantless Stingray usage, they intentionally refused to do so. There is a documented string of
about 43 failures to produce the legally required disclosure. Faced with public records laws that required
them to turn over the documents, they circumvented records retention requirement and put policies and
procedures in place to prevent the public and defendants from obtaining the Stingray records. [2][3][5][6]

Sheriff Gualtieri and Bernie McCabe will implement a fake news campaign by telling the press and lie to
one and all about the fact that they did use the Stingray legally and had obtained a court order, even
though they are well aware that a WARRANT is required according to the Florida Supreme Court. [8][21]
[22] If a criminal defendant pushes through this wall of lies, violations of law, legal obstacles and the
fraudulent defenses of indefensible positions by the SAO and PCSO, and gets a court order to have the
State finally turn over the stingray documents, they dismiss the case on the day they are required to turn
over the documents so that they can keep on using the Stingray illegally just like they did with the
McLynas case [14][15] These were not mistakes, they were intentional violations of law and Brady.
With ALL of the above taking place on a regular basis in Pinellas County at the Pinellas County Sheriffs
Office with the help and cooperation of the State Attorneys Office, it is inconceivable that PCSOs
senior associate counsel Paul Rozelles would know NOTHING about ANY of this. However, when
you take Paul Rozelles comments outside that court room after he just got done telling the judge there
were NO Stingray documents, (in front of an Assistant State Attorney that KNEW there were Stingray
documents), Rozelles lying to Jerry Theophilopoulos about there being no stingray documents because
that technology was not used on McLynas fits right in with the massive campaign to keep the use of
Stingray and the associated documents a secret from everybody. [1-28]
Pinellas County Sheriff Gualtieri and his crony State Attorney Bernie McCabe just want to put people in
jail no matter how they have to do it, and the hell with the U.S. Constitution, the Brady ruling, due
process or the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because as Bernie McCabe put is ever so clearly, "We know
they got a defendant arrested. Really, I don't know that I'm terribly concerned how they found the
suspect" [20] Paul Rozelle is at the front lines of this illegal and criminal [27] deception.
Since Sheriff Gualtieri will certainly not investigate any criminal activity being intentionally committed
by himself and his employees, and Bernie McCabe is even less likely to prosecute crimes and violations
being committed by he and the Sheriff, so it falls upon the Florida BAR to hold the Attorneys involved
responsible for their personal participation and actions within this corrupt agency such as Paul Rozelle.
James McLynas
736 182nd Ave. East
Redington Shores, Fl 33708
727-599-4374