You are on page 1of 5

Citations

1. PCSOs Deputy Matthew Wroes Application for a Order requiring McLynas phone provider to
provide information to the PCSO. THIS IS NOT A WARRANT.
https://www.scribd.com/document/325695111/PCSO-Matthew-Wroe-Depo-Stingray-Application
2. Pinellas County Sheriffs Deputy Matthew Wroe Deposition, March 8, 2016
State vs McLynas Case#137235CFANO https://www.scribd.com/document/325695111/PCSOMatthew-Wroe-Depo-Stingray-Application
Wroe Deposition Page 9, Line 23 through Page 10, Line 6
Q: You keep saying Im told to get a court order. Why didnt you all get a warrant on this case for the
cell site simulator use?
Wroe: The court order was the standard procedure for what we got
Wroe Deposition Page 12, 23 through Line 22
Q: Did you type this up at your office?
Wroe: It was type up at (ASA) Mr. Grogers office.
Q: Is a copy of the application kept with your department?
Wroe: A copy of the application is not kept with our department.
Q: Is a copy of the Order kept with your department?
Wroe: 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.
Q: So does the Sheriffs office maintain those orders in some sort of filing system?
Wroe: Im not sure what happens to them.. that would be a question for Sergeant Dane. Other than
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
Q: That system, you do keep a copy of that Order?
Wroe We would scan the Order in.
3. The ACISS Sheriff's report where Deputy Wroe created an entirely new report number and archive to
store the Stingray documents out of view from public records use within the original ACISS reports filed
on McLynas. When they produced this ACISS report under Court Order to McLynas, they redacted the
report number so that we could not tell that it was a separate and new Report filed only to hide the
Stingray use from McLynas and his lawyer because they failed to obtain a warrant as required by law.
There is no legal exemption under which a court ordered police report would have the report number
redacted. https://www.scribd.com/document/334022723/Pinellas-County-Sheriff-s-Deputy-MatthewWroe-ACISS-Report-from-Stingray-Usage
4. Wallace vs. Guzman, 687 So. 2nd 1351 (Fla 3d DCA 1997) An agency is not authorized to refuse to
allow inspection of public records it made or received in connection with the transaction of official
business on the grounds that the documents are in the actual possession of an agency or official other than
the records custodian.
5. Metropolitan Dade County Transit v Sanchez 426 So. 3nd 27 (Fla 1983) Official charged with
maintenance of records may not transfer actual physical custody of records to county attorney and thereby
avoid compliance with request for inspection under Ch.119 F.S.
6. McLynas v Pinellas County Sheriff Case# 16-006722-CI
https://www.scribd.com/document/328327343/Pinellas-County-Sheriff-Robert-Gualtieri-Sued-forHiding-Incriminating-Records-From-Oppodo sing-Candidate
7. State Attorney Bernie McCabes Brady disclosure form Answer to Demand for Discovery where they
attempt to deceive Defense attorneys that electronic surveillance documents exist that were supposed to

8.
9.
10.

11.

12.

13.

be automatically provided under brady. This was done by making large check marks all over the form,
but intentionally leaving the electronic surveillance disclosure boxes blank. (filed in case(s) CRC 1318277CFANO-D and 1318279CFANO. These forms also intentionally leave off the prosecutions case
number and only reference the case by police report number to again separate the deception from the
criminal case. https://www.scribd.com/document/329670852/Pinellas-County-State-AttorneyDisclosure-Failure
Tracey v State of Florida, Florida Supreme CourtCase#SC11-2254
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2014/sc11-2254.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/prosecutors-drop-robbery-case-to-preserve-stingray-secrecyin-st-louis/
Pinellas County Sheriffs Lead Counsel Claims transferring documents to another agency allows the
PCSO to claim that no records responsive to a Title X, Chapter 119 open records request when that is
contrary to Florida law and case cite. https://www.scribd.com/document/329673284/Pinellas-CountyLawyer-Shanon-Lockheart-Illegally-Claims-SAO-Has-Documents
T-Mobile E-mail detailing their response to the Pen Register Subpoena Request for the phone records
for McLynas. This further evidences the fact that the PCSO did NOT obtain any Stingray Warrant as
their Senior Associate Counsel Paul Rozelle continues to allege in written documents to the Florida BAR.
https://www.scribd.com/document/334022344/T-Mobile-Subpoena-Email
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1727748-non-disclosureagreement.html#document/p3/a212440
Department of Justice, FBI letter dated June 29, 2012.
In addition, the Erie County Sheriffs Office will, at the request of the FBI seek dismissal of the case in
lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris
Corporation equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related
documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology) if
using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment or
technology. This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial
process.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclosestingray-details/
An FBI agreement, published for the first time in unredacted form on Tuesday, clearly demonstrates the
full extent of the agencys attempt to quash public disclosure of information about stingrays. The most
egregious example of this is language showing that the FBI would rather have a criminal case be dropped
to protect secrecy surrounding the stingray.
7) The Erie County Sheriff's Office shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any
information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated
software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering
description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the
equipment/technology including, but not limited to, 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 State's case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or
criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI.
8) In addition, the Erie County Sheriff's Office will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in
lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris
Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and
any related documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the
equipment/technology), if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise

the equipment/technology. This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the
prosecutorial process. Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI's
expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for
inclusion in this agreement.
14. Cases that were dropped or evidence tossed because of illegal police Stingray use without the required
warrant. 1. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-stingray-murder-evidencesuppressed-20160425-story.html
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-crime-stingrayidUSKCN0ZS2VI
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/04/baltimore-cases-overturnedpolice-secret-stingray-surveillance
15. https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadth-secretive-stingray-useflorida
16. Pinellas County Sheriffs Deputy Matthew Wroe Deposition, March 8, 2016
State vs McLynas Case#137235CFANO https://www.scribd.com/document/325695111/PCSOMatthew-Wroe-Depo-Stingray-Application
Q: Do you know why the numbers are redacted on your case number?
ASA Greg Groger Objects; Im going to object to the form of the question. Its privileged
information.
17. Pinellas County Sheriffs Deputy Matthew Wroe Deposition, March 8, 2016
State vs McLynas Case#137235CFANO https://www.scribd.com/document/325695111/PCSOMatthew-Wroe-Depo-Stingray-Application
Page 20, Lines 7 through Page 21, Line 17
Q: In the documentation (Application) that was provided to me, it states that there is probable cause to
believe that the targeted phone is being used for criminal purpose. Do you recall that language?
Wroe: Thats something that would generally be in these types of orders, yes sir
Q: Can you explain to me what information you had that there was probable cause to believe that the
targeted phone was being used for a criminal purpose?
Wroe: I guess its sort of a way of explaining that this individual us believed to be in possession of
that phone. And by continuing to try and evade capture, which we had information from arson auto
theft they they could not find him that he was trying to avoid this warrant and their charges, that by
doing so, if he was utilizing his cell phone. (at the time the Application was being signed and sworn to
by Deputy Wroe, Arson and auto theft had no issued any warrants or charges and there was no way for
McLynas to have known there was any warrant or that they were looking for him)
Q: So you are saying him utilizing his cell phone is a criminal purpose?
Wroe: if he was doing so to avoid capture.
Q: What was he doing with his cell phone to avoid capture that that language was put in there? Who told
you what he was doing with that cell phone
Wroe: that cell phone in particular?
Q: Yes.
Wroe: No one. But in regards to him avoiding capture, the arson and auto theft detectives.
Q: What did the arson auto theft detectives indicate to you how he was using his cell phone for a criminal
purpose?
Wroe: in particular, nothing I recall
Q: So why was that language put in there then?
Wroe: I think its pretty standard language in regards to if a criminal is using or has a phone, theyre
using that phone to move about and communicate with people
Page 22, Lines 11 though 16

Q: So is that language in pretty much all of the applications that you are aware of? Is that standard
language
Wroe: I think it is very standard language, to be honest, yes sir.
18. Pam Bondis Sunshine Manual A Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies states;
a. 3. Electronic and computer records a. Electronic databases and files Information stored in a public
agencys computer is as much a public record as a written page in a book or a tabulation in a file
stored in a filing cabinet . . . .7 Thus, information such as electronic calendars, databases, and word
processing files stored in agency computers, can all constitute public records because records made
or received in the course of official business and intended to perpetuate, communicate or formalize
knowledge of some type, fall within the scope of Ch. 119, F.S.8
b. C. APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT TO SPECIFIC RECORDS 1. Arrest and
crime reports and the exemption for active criminal investigative and intelligence information Arrest
and crime reports are generally considered to be open to public inspection.
19. Florida AGO Pam Bondi Advisory Legal Opinon 91-74
http://myfloridalegal.com/__85256236006EB5E1.nsf/0/E31BDB22B7D59A25852562B50066805F?
Open&Highlight=0,ago,91-74
A crime or incident report prepared by a law enforcement agency after a specific crime has been
committed which contains information given during the initial reporting of the crime prior to the
initiation of the investigation, does not constitute criminal investigative or intelligence information. If
the report, however, contains information gathered during the criminal justice agency's investigation
which qualifies as active criminal investigative information, such information may be deleted and the
remainder of the crime or incident report disclosed.
20. Tampa Bay Times article (4-22-16) referencing the illegal use of Stingray on McLynas with quotes from
Sheriff Gualtieri and State Attorney Bernie McCabe.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/pinellas-sheriffs-office-is-using-a-tool-that-can-turn-yourphone-into-a/2274310
21. Tampa Bay Times article (4-22-16) reporting that the Pinellas County Sheriff Robert Gualtieri admitted
that he had Signed the Harris Corps nondisclosure agreement. But many agencies refused to disclose
documents. Before departments can buy the equipment from Harris Corp., they must sign
nondisclosure agreements with the FBI. The Pinellas Sheriff's Office entered into the same agreement,
Gualtieri said.
22. Sample of the Harris Corporation Non-Disclosure agreement identical to the one signed by Sheriff Robert
Gualtieri of the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office. https://www.cehrp.org/text-of-fbi-non-disclosureagreement-for-harris-corporation-stingray/ The Pinellas County Sheriffs Office shall not, in any civil
or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless
collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related
documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the
evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to,
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, without the prior written approval of
the FBI.
23. The April 28, 2016 letter to Pinellas County Sheriff Paul Rozelle asking him to explain how a Pen
Register trap and trace subpoena is supposedly a probable cause warrant for the use of a Stingray
tracking/wiretapping device. There was never a response.

https://www.scribd.com/document/334244246/Rozelle-Stingray-Letter

PENDING DOCUMENTS: I have a pending Title X, Chapter 119 records request filed with the PCSO
requesting Any and all emails, inter-office memos or communications of any type or form between Paul
Rozelle and Gregory Groger of the State Attorney's office related to James McLynas or the use of a
Stingray or similar cell cite simulator device. I may have access to these emails shortly and would be glad
to provide them to the Florida BAR upon request.