You are on page 1of 4



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. The
video 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 officesomething 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 I
did 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 Sheriffs 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 thaton 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. Id be interested which specific agency(ies) fit
that criteria, however, before I am willing to concede the point.


There are three allegations here, and I will treat them separately:
Im 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: Ive 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 the
technology. 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
I have repeatedly held that no warrant is required for the use of this technology:
That still remains my position.
My specific quote was, its 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, Id 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 on
camera to opine to the contrary, that is not legal precedent either. The question
is what the law requires of the Sacramento County Sheriffs Department, not
what youd 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), Im not sure I fully understand what youre accusing me of?
The no responsive documents would have been accurate at the time because
the 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 didnt realize there was a nondisclosure when we made our initial requests in 2013. I must admit that I cant
fully understand what youre asking, but I think youre saying that if we didnt
know a non-disclosure agreement existed in 2013, we should have released all
the information then? If thats what youre trying to say, when media outlets
made their inquiries in 2013, thats 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. Thats why it
was not a responsive document to the requests.

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. Im not sure its reasonable to compare our use with similar
technology employed by the military when used in Iraq and Afghanistan. I
suspect the FBIs strong interest in non-disclosure of the technology (as well as
what we know of some of the federal agencies historically) suggests that there
are likely technological capabilities available to the federal government or
militarywhether this device or othersthat 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 prospectespecially when you may
not leave your prior station on the best of termsbut 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 dont watch channel
ten so I cant 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.