ASHCROFT SUTTON REYES’ December 18,2018 VIA EMAL. Ms. Maqui M. Booker Assistant Viee President (Office for Incoson and uity Univessiy of Tena a Astin Student Services Billing, Ran 3:212 100 W, Dean Keeton Street, Avon, Texas 78712 Phone (512) 471-1819 E-Mail: Marquis hooker@nstinutexa.edy Re: Final Investgnive Report Ms. Booker We hve completed our investigation inta the allegations made aginst State Senator Charles Schwertnet. Our final repo is contained ina sip file stacked tothe emai transmitting this Iter ‘Once yo open the sip file, yo will find the final sepot and the repott appendices in two separ pf les both of which are password protected, My office wll contact you via phone to provide the password, Plese contact my office you have any dificulty opening the ils, \We appreciate the opportnity to work on thie matter fr the University of Texas Sincerely, Johnny Setton Ce James Davie Kista Anderson Enclosures ‘S19 Congres Avenue + Sate 10 + Asin TOOT TEES 370100 » Fe S12 727 200 wor AahorotlanPi.com‘CUTIVE SUMMARY “The Complainant, University of Texas at Austin siden, reported to a Univesity official that on ‘August 28,2018, the Respondent an ait male who isnot astadent orn nplayce ofthe University, sent hor several Linken messages (aching one requesting her cll phone nam, then sent he exaly inppropsate text messages (including a potograph ofa nbde male body with the face eopped at om. his cell phone number. One ofthe text messages said, “This is (Responden’s fist name)". The Respondent's Linkedin messiges inched one asking whether Complainant was receiving the texts. The inppoprate communications were uisolicite by and offensive to Complainant. Complaeant ulimatly responded (0 the text messages and LinkedIn messages, asking the sender 10 Stop the offensive ‘communications. She received nothing futher from the Respondents cel phone number or Linked ‘account. Subsequent forensic review ofthe Complainaas cell phone caine tht she rceved the ext mesenger and phologrpt fom cll phone number that was handrten on the Respondents business ‘ad and personally given Complainant by Respondent pier to August 28,2018. ‘The University retained Johnny Sutton, farmer United States Attooney forthe Wester Distt of ‘Texas and eureat pane inthe Ashcroft Suton Reyes law fim, to investigate this matter and determine whether Respondent violated Title IX or University policy. Thovgh Respondents neither a student nor an employee ofthe University, concen regatding Tile IX arose beease Respondent ist came iat contact, ‘vith Corplsnant tan evet tht Compliant was encouraged to ated bythe University. MF. Suton lmerviewed the Complainant, who flly cooperated withthe investigation. Mr. Suton engaged a forensic westigator who was allowed to examine the Complainant's and Respondents phones Da di not have access to other devices relevant to te investigation. Mr. Suton also repeatedly requested wo inerview the Respondent, Respondent refused to meet with Mr, Sutton bk conveyed certnn information though his aes Respondent also reise ane ve wien qeston a Wee eine eng o the investigation. Me. Sutton’ investigation reveled that the eel phone number, handvrten on Respondent's business card, was not the eavier-Sased cell phone munber associated with Respondents Phone, but instead a phone number purchased through an app called Hushed. Hushe allows use to parchase ane oF ‘move private phone numbers communicate via cel phone without revealing the users acl ell phone ‘number or revealing that a texto al was sent hough the Hushed app. The Hushed ap requies he wer ‘to og in wi a username and password to beable to send a message from the private number Respondent's attorneys clin tha thi person, known to Respondent but whom Respondent will not identity sent the text messages and photograph via the Hushe app tothe Complainant. Respnden's atineys tid inesigntors that Respondent shared his username end password for bot his Linkedln and ‘used aecouats wih his hed person. In separate communications, the atforey for an unidentified third person asserted that the hid piso seat the fest messages ad plaigiop aise wo dhe Complainant without Respite’ pio Knowledge or approval. The atomney fr tis thied parson did not disclose tho hed person's eaionship With th Respondent and didnot veal why he ar se sent the offensive text messages and potouaph 0 the Complainant, The atomey claims that this third person signed an affidavit atesting to the tth of his other statements but veftses to ditlose his or erent. ‘The forensic review of the Respondent's phone provided key information. Fis, the review deermsined hat Respondent spears have shred his sername and password fo shed ith third peson, because the Respondet and thie persou used the same Huse aecouat opvately communicate between themselves. Second, the review determined that an iPhane used wo send text oF photograph 2‘rough the Hushed app contains a detetbe electronic tac ofthe comneation within the phone's ‘operating software, and Respondent's phone did not have that electronic tee. Ths, the forensic investigator concludes tha the text messages and photograph tissue were not scot fom Respondents ‘hone. Respondent's refusal to filly cooperate prevented the investigators from determining weer Respondent ad mp devies, suck as tater iPhone oe Pad which could have been use to sea the text messages and photograph. Moreover, the unidentified thi person's cell phone wes nat made available for Torense review to determine whether or not twas uscd to sed the text messages and photograph, 3 the thd peson's atorey elas, "sed on te avilable ntormation, ts clear hat Complainant ecsved the invite anole ‘ext messages and photograph, and that she reasonably believed those eam fan Respondent tis also len that dhe fet messages and photograph were not sent om Respondent's el phate Tit, tov an ‘widened thin person trough anatomey, claims responsibilty Tor sending the txt messages and photograph, we eatinot et the trues ft cla ‘We recognize hati is pausible the Respondent seu the text messiges and photograph fom & device ter than his personal ell phane andthe hed person caiing esponsibility s being nth ot does not exit, but we have no evidence to suppod hose possibiites, It is azo plausible thatthe hind Peron wh claims to ave sence text messages and photograph dos exist and didn fat send them, Te forensic evidence shows tat a third person had the means 1 do so. Respondent hs acces to nfrmation Uthat coud aow a more definitive conclusion to this rater, bt the Respondent is unwiling fo share tht information, and the University lacks authority o compel Ma oeooperte mace fly. ‘Therefore, the available evidence does not support finding tat Respondent engaged in condi wt violates Tite IX or University policy. Additionally, without more information regarding the \midentifed third person and iso er connection othe Univesity and Complainant, we cannot conclude ‘hat the hid pero’ alleged conduct, i we, cnsies x volation of Title 1X or University policy.