This is the document used by the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office to document their required Brady Act disclosures to the Defendant's attorney in a criminal case. In this particular case, the Pinellas County State Attorney assisted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office in hiding the illegal use of a Stingray tracking device against this Defendant. The SAO is required by law to disclose any use of "electronic surveillance" and provide the documents used within that surveillance. As you can see by this form, when they get to the line where they either have to affirm that there are no documents, or the documents have been turned over to the Defense, NEITHER box is filed in. They thought that nobody would notice that they were trying to cover up the illegal surveillance. However, the law is quite clear that the SAO has an automatic obligation to disclose and provide these documents whether or not Defense is aware of them or asks for them. This action by Bernie McCabe's office is both illegal and actionable and could result in the disbarment of the SAO that filed out this form. It could also serve as the basis for an appeal. Within the case in this example, the SAO dropped the charges when the Stingray documents were ordered by the judge to be turned over by the SAO. Within the discovery process, the SAO claimed the Sheriff had them, and the Sheriff claimed the SAO had them so both refused to produce them.
This is the document used by the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office to document their required Brady Act disclosures to the Defendant's attorney in a criminal case. In this particular case, the Pinellas County State Attorney assisted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office in hiding the illegal use of a Stingray tracking device against this Defendant. The SAO is required by law to disclose any use of "electronic surveillance" and provide the documents used within that surveillance. As you can see by this form, when they get to the line where they either have to affirm that there are no documents, or the documents have been turned over to the Defense, NEITHER box is filed in. They thought that nobody would notice that they were trying to cover up the illegal surveillance. However, the law is quite clear that the SAO has an automatic obligation to disclose and provide these documents whether or not Defense is aware of them or asks for them. This action by Bernie McCabe's office is both illegal and actionable and could result in the disbarment of the SAO that filed out this form. It could also serve as the basis for an appeal. Within the case in this example, the SAO dropped the charges when the Stingray documents were ordered by the judge to be turned over by the SAO. Within the discovery process, the SAO claimed the Sheriff had them, and the Sheriff claimed the SAO had them so both refused to produce them.
This is the document used by the Pinellas County State Attorney's Office to document their required Brady Act disclosures to the Defendant's attorney in a criminal case. In this particular case, the Pinellas County State Attorney assisted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office in hiding the illegal use of a Stingray tracking device against this Defendant. The SAO is required by law to disclose any use of "electronic surveillance" and provide the documents used within that surveillance. As you can see by this form, when they get to the line where they either have to affirm that there are no documents, or the documents have been turned over to the Defense, NEITHER box is filed in. They thought that nobody would notice that they were trying to cover up the illegal surveillance. However, the law is quite clear that the SAO has an automatic obligation to disclose and provide these documents whether or not Defense is aware of them or asks for them. This action by Bernie McCabe's office is both illegal and actionable and could result in the disbarment of the SAO that filed out this form. It could also serve as the basis for an appeal. Within the case in this example, the SAO dropped the charges when the Stingray documents were ordered by the judge to be turned over by the SAO. Within the discovery process, the SAO claimed the Sheriff had them, and the Sheriff claimed the SAO had them so both refused to produce them.