Sacramento Sheriff Jones Response to Thom Jennson

7/17/2019 Sacramento Sheriff Jones Response to Thom Jennson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sacramento-sheriff-jones-response-to-thom-jennson 1/4

Mr. Jensen,

Each time you have written your queries down, I have tried to respond. That is the way

I prefer our correspondence, far less chance of misconstruing or editing what I say. Thevideo you so gleefully display each chance you get still does not let viewers know that

my “then this interview is over” comment came directly after you accused me of violating

the Constitution and my oath of office—something I took personally. Of course,

including that piece would make the moment appear balanced, but far less dramatic.

So now you accuse me of being a liar, undoubtedly attempting to evoke a similarly

emotional response. Unlike your prior instance where you accosted me unprepared,

and you subsequently denied my request for an unedited copy of the video so I could

defend myself, here I have my own video of the press conference. I am under no

misconception that the facts here are going to get in the way of your good story, but Idid want to respond to your allegations in turn:

1. That I lied about being the first agency to adopt such a policy: My quote was:

“The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department is the first state or local law

enforcement agency in the country to develop a policy, and provide it publicly for

its use.” There are states that have passed laws (like now in California), and

widespread policy directives that cover multiple agencies, but I am unaware of

ANY local or state law enforcement agency that—on their own (i.e., without being

forced to)—developed a policy on the use of cell site simulator technology, AND

distributed it publicly. If there is such an agency out there somewhere, I was

unable to find it. And to come to that conclusion we did an exhaustive internet

search, as well as inquired with both the FBI and the manufacturer, Harris Corp.

I am still unaware of any agency that fits that criteria, but if you were able to find

one, I stand corrected and will never again make that claim; your search skills

perhaps were better than ours. I’d be interested which specific agency(ies) fit

that criteria, however, before I am willing to concede the point.

2. There are three allegations here, and I will treat them separately:

I’m doing this on my own, because of my vow of transparency : True statement.

The FBI over the last several months changed or softened their position on

several points that they had prohibited me prior from talking about. That gave



me the opportunity to speak to them, as well as develop and publicly distribute

the policy.

That I only recently became aware of the non-disclosure agreement: I’ve never

said that or even implied that; in fact, to the contrary, I have consistently

asserted the non-disclosure agreement as the reason I could not talk about thetechnology. A specific contrary quote from the press conference:

“in late 2013 we started receiving media inquiries relative to the use of

this technology. It was then, as we poured over the non-disclosure

agreements…”

I have repeatedly held that no warrant is required for the use of this technology:

That still remains my position.

My specific quote was, “it’s important to note that back then, as now, there is no

court or legal authority or statute that requires judicial review or a warrant for the

use of this particular technology.”

I have no way of referencing the cases you purport to cite to the contrary, but if

you give me proper citations or at least case names, I’d be happy to look those

particular cases up and explain why they do not apply.

In the meantime, however, unless you can find a published case that is binding

on Sacramento County (mandatory authority vs. persuasive, for your legal

department), you claiming to the contrary simply because you may find a court

somewhere that required it, is dishonest. As for you getting a professor oncamera to opine to the contrary, that is not legal precedent either. The question

is what the law requires of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, not

what you’d like it to or think it should require, or what some other court may have

ruled. And my statement that our prior use has never required a warrant is

factually correct. Which necessarily makes any statement to the contrary

factually incorrect.

3. That I “had no choice but to mislead the public” because of the non -disclosure:

This is a material misstatement; I have never made that statement, and have

never said that I have misled the public, and in fact have never misled the public

about this or any other issue. I have said prior that I had no choice in whether I

could make public statements or admit to possessing the technology, and that is

absolutely true.



Your assertion that somehow I DID have a choice because I could have simply

given the technology back (or never accepted it in the first place) is misguided. I

still would have had no choice whether to talk about the technology.

As to subsection b), I’m not sure I fully understand what you’re accusing me of?

The “no responsive documents” would have been accurate at the time becausethe non-disclosure agreement would have been exempt from disclosure under

the California Public Records Act, which was told to you in response to your

request, including the appropriate Government Code statutes that applied.

Your statement, “also, if that is true, why did the sheriff claim in 2013-that he had

no responsive documents. (In the press conference he said that he only realized

that there was a non-disclosure [sic]. 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.” I must admit that I can’t

fully understand what you’re asking, but I think you’re saying that if we didn’tknow a non-disclosure agreement existed in 2013, we should have released all

the information then? If that’s what you’re trying to say, when media outlets

made their inquiries in 2013, that’s when we examined the non-disclosure

agreement and started our discourse with the FBI about what we could and could

not do. We knew of the agreement back then (as I indicated at the press

conference), but it was exempt from disclosure as detailed above. That’s why it

was not a “responsive document” to the requests.

4 That I stated that “the devices” are unable to collect any content like text

messages: This materially misrepresents what I have said. I have never

made sweeping statements about similar devices, I have only consistently stated

that our device does not have the capability to capture content, listen in on phone

calls, capture internet use, or capture text messages. I would have no idea if

there are other devices or technologies out there that have greater or different

capabilities. I’m not sure it’s reasonable to compare our use with similar

technology employed by the military “when used in Iraq and Afghanistan.” I

suspect the FBI’s strong interest in non-disclosure of the technology (as well as

what we know of some of the federal agencies historically) suggests that thereare likely technological capabilities available to the federal government or

military—whether this device or others—that far surpass our use of the

technology. Your reported implications to the contrary were misleading at best,

and dishonest at worst. My statements as to the limitations of our device have

always been both truthful and consistent.



5. “The sheriff claimed that I was barred from a press conference, because of the

way I ‘conduct’ my ‘business”: This is simply untrue. I never gave you any

reason why you were excluded from the press conference. It is important to note

that I DID allow channel ten and ANY other of their reporters to attend and

participate fully, just not you. However, so there remains no further doubt as to

why I made the decision to exclude you, here is the reason:

In all candor, I personally find you dishonest, unethical, and a blemish to your

profession. You have little interest in the truth, but rather going from station to

station making a splash purporting to be a hard-hitting investigative reporter.

Although I concede this must be a difficult prospect—especially when you may

not leave your prior station on the best of terms—but you still have a choice, to

retain your ethics or cave to the sensationalist TMZ-style journalism that

captivates modern audiences’ attention, but does little to inform them or feed

them intellectually.

Everything you have done on this issue (and to be honest, I don’t watch channel

ten so I can’t comment on whatever else you might do), has been filled with false

innuendo and misleading implications, and I have little doubt that you would

have turned the press conference into your own personal circus. That would

have been fair neither to the truth, nor to the other respected journalists present.

Your spectacle in our lobby with the “real” reporter hiding out of sight, despite

knowing hours prior that you were not welcome, only confirms my suspicions in

that regard.

Mr. Jensen, you are the only person I have ever refused an interview to based

solely on who was asking, and I hope this provides unequivocal clarity as to why.

So you can stop asking, but you MAY feel free to continue to submit questions

through our media office in writing and I will respond to them when appropriate. I

have never had conflict or issue with any other reporter in the region, including

ones from channel ten, regardless of what they may be reporting on. And before

you get all worked up about me calling you dishonest, unethical and a blemish to

your profession, consider that it is precisely what you have either directly

accused me of, or characterized me as.

Now, perhaps, you have some perspective.

Sacramento Sheriff Jones Response to Thom Jennson

Documents

Transcript of Sacramento Sheriff Jones Response to Thom Jennson