Sheriff Bob Gualtieri Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office "Leading The Way For A Safer Pinellas Via Overnight Delivery December 6, 2016 Ms. Maura Canter, Bar Counsel The Florida Bar 651 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300 Re: » Complaint by James McLynas against Paul Grant Rozelle The Florida Dear Ms. Canter: Enclosed is my response to the complaint filed against me by James McLynas. As required, I hhave also sent a copy of my response to James MeLynas. Also enclosed is the Certificate of Disclosure. Paul Grant Rozelle Senior Associate Counsel co: Mr. James MeLynas (with enclosure)Pursuant to Rule 3-7.1(f), Rules of Discipline, you must execute the appropriate disclosure paragraph below and return the form to this office by December 7, 2016. The rule provides that the nature of the charges be stated in the notice to your firm; however, we suggest that you attach a copy of the complaint. CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of __ ,201__, a true copy of the foregoing disclosure was furnished to , amember of my present law firm of. and, if different, to , amember of the law firm of —_, with which I was associated orida Bar File No. 2017-10,423 at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in Th: (6C). Paul Grant Rozelle CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE (Corporate/Government Employment) THEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of Novewkxy _,201.@ , atrue copy of the foregoing disclosure was fumishedto Ghanne, LecKhenct my supervisor at Me. Vnrelles Gunty Sheciffs a Hie (name of agency), with which I was associated at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2017-10,423 (6C). Cs vice z= othe aul Grant Rozelle CERTIFICATE OF NON-LAW FIRM AFFILIATION (Sole Practitioner) I HEREBY CERTIFY to The Florida Bar on this _ day of, p20 lanes that I am not presently affiliated with a law firm and was not affiliated with a law firm at the time of the act(s) giving rise to the complaint in The Florida Bar File No. 2017-10,423 (6C). Paul Grant RozelleRe: — Complaint by James McLynas Against Paul Grant Rozelle The Florida Bar File No. 2017-10,423 (6) RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT BY JAMES McLYNAS. AGAINST PAUL GRANT ROZELLE Thave been a member of The Florida Bar since March 19, 2010. After graduating Duke Law School, I was admitted in Massachusetts in 1999 and, by examination, in Ohio in 2003. have never been the subject of discipline in any jurisdiction. Iam a member of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (“PCSO”), holding the rank of Senior Associate Counsel. [ have held this position (although my job title has changed) since May 29, 2012. On May 24, 2015, James McLynas made a public records request of the PCSO for documents involving the PCSO"s possession and use of a cell site simulator. (Exhibit 1.) The PCSO's public records unit contacted me for advice on the response to Mr. MeLynas’s request. The public records unit told me that their search of the PCSO’s records did not reveal a warrant or warrant application for the use of a cell site simulator on Mr. McLynas. I provided advice to the public records unit in response to their question and that concluded my involvement in the public records request. On June 4, 2015, the public records unit responded to Mr. MeLynas that there were no records responsive to his third and fourth enumerated requests because the PCSO did not have any warrant applications related to Mr. MeLynas. (Exhibit 1.) Thad no further involvement in this matter until September 3, 2015, when Sheriff Bob Gualtieri was served with a subpoena issued by Mr. McLynas’s attorney, Jerry Theophilopoulos, to give deposition testimony in a criminal case in which Mr. McLynas was charged with felony battery on an elderly person, State v. MeLynas, Case No, 13-17275-CF (Sixth Judicial Circuit). Iwas assigned by the PCSO"s General Counsel to file a motion to quash the subpoena, which I did on September 4, 2015. (Exhibit 2.) The Motion to Quash was scheduled to be heard on September 8, 2015. Also scheduled for hearing that day was a Motion to Compel discovery from the State filed by Mr. ‘Theophilopoulos. (Exhibit 3.) Mr. Theophilopoulos did not serve the PCSO with a copy of this motion nor was the PCSO a party to Mr. McLynas’s criminal case. On September 8, 2015, at 1:30 P.M., I appeared in court on the Motion to Quash the subpoena to Sheriff Gualtieri. The Court heard the Motion to Compel first. The first item in that motion involved the production documents related to the use of a “Stingray,” or cell site simulator, in apprehending Mr. McLynas. After the Assistant State Attomey presented the State’s position, the Judge asked for the Sheriff's position. I responded that the Sherriff was not, a party to the Motion to Compel and did not have notice of it, but that I could provide some background that might illuminate the issue. I said that in May 2015, Mr. MeLynas made a public records request of the PCSO for similar records and he had received a response to that request. (Exhibit 1.) said that, to the extent the motion was seeking warrant applications, Mr. McLynas ‘was told that there were no records responsive.' The Court then ruled that if such records existed, the State would have 15 days to produce them. Although pronounced orally in court on September 8, 2015, the written Order from that ruling was not entered until September 24, 2015. (Exhibit 4.) That Order does not direct the PCSO to produce the cell site simulator documents, unlike paragraph 3 of the Order, which is a specific ruling that the PCSO produce other documents not at issue in Mr. MeLynas’s Bar complaint. ‘ The audio recording from the September 8, 2015 hearing is available on your request. 2The second item in the Motion to Compel was for the production certain unredacted 911 calls. This also was the subject of an earlier public records request. This issue was addressed uneventfully with the Court ordering the State to produce the unredacted calls, The last item in the Motion to Compel involved the production of “officer safety bulletins” related to Mr. McLynas. Like the other two items in the Motion to Compel, this was the subject ofan earlier public records request. I knew the PCSO’s records unit had responded to that request that there were no responsive records, and I relayed that information to the Court. ‘The Court ordered the documents produced if they existed. ‘The Court then heard argument on Sheriff Gualtieri’s Motion to Quash. During the argument on the Motion to Quash, Mr. Theophilopoulos returned to the issue of the “officer safety bulletins,” which he now described with more particularity. The Court granted the Motion to Quash and the hearing concluded. (Exhibit 5.) ‘When the hearing concluded, I asked to speak with Mr. Theophilopoulos in the hallway so that I could clear up the issue of the “officer safety bulletins.” I told Mr. Theophilopoulos in the hallway that the PCSO had the “officer safety” document he was looking for but had not realized it because of how he had initially described it. [also told Mr. Theophilopoulos that Mr. MeLynas already had that document because the PCSO hed previously given it to him, The conversation with Mr. Theophilopoulos then turned to the other documents that he had moved to compel from the State. As Mr. McLynas states, I told Mr. Theophilopoulos that no such documents existed regarding the use of a cell site simulator on Mr. McLynas because the PCSO did not use any such technology on Mr. MeLynas. I said this to Mr. Theophilopoulos because, as noted above, I was told that the PCSO had no such documentation and I believed that statement to be true based on the information I was given, 3After leaving the courthouse, I called the PCSO's Tactical Operations Unit (“TOU’ ‘TOU is the unit in the PCSO that has control of the cell site simulator. The purpose of my call ‘was to inform the sergeant in charge of TOU that a court had granted a motion to compel the State to produce documents related to the cell site simulator, to let them know the court order would be forthcoming, and to offer my assistance should they have questions about the order. It was on that phone call that I first leamed the cell site simulator was used to locate Mr. MeLynas, that a warrant had been applied for to use the cell site simulator, and that a warrant had issued for its use. I confirmed that the PCSO did not have and never had a copy of the warrant application. I leamed that a TOU detective, Detective Wroe, went to the State Attomey’s Office for their assistance to obtain the warrant. I learned that the warrant application was created at the State Attomey’s Office by the Assistant State Attomey. I leamed that the State had the only copy of the warrant and application. I leaned that the State had moved to seal the warrant, which was granted.? After my conversation with TOU, I contacted the State Attomey’s Office, spoke with Assistant State Attomey Greg Groger, and confirmed that Detective Wroe had sought his assistance in applying for a warrant to use the cell site simulator to locate Mr. MeLynas. I confirmed that Mr. Groger assisted Detec! fe Wroe in obtaining the warrant and had moved the Court to seal the warrant. Neither the State Attorney's Office nor Detective Wroe ever contacted the PCSO General Counsel’s office or sought advice from the PCSO General Counsel’s office in applying for or obtaining the warrant, 2 A copy of the warrant application and the warrant are available on request. 4After I learned that the cell site simulator was used to find Mr. McLynas, I gathered any and all documents in the PCSO’s possession that might be responsive to the court order. [also requested a copy of the warrant application from the State Attomey’s Office. On September 17, 2015, well before the 15-day deadline in the Court's Order granting the Motion to Compel, I delivered the documents to the State Attorney’s Office for distribution pursuant to the Order. My understanding was that the State, to whom the Motion to Compel and the resulting Order ‘was addressed, would produce the documents prior to the deadline. | later leamed that the State entered a nolle prosequi to the charges prior to producing the documents. (Exhibit 6.) Asan attomey for the PCSO, I have no authority to dispose of or prosecute criminal charges against anyone. [ spoke to Assistant State Attorney Greg Groger who told me the reason the State dropped the charges was unrelated to the use of the cell site simulator and the reason for the nolle prosequi was documented in their file. The remaining allegations in Mr. McLynas’s Bar complaint are baseless and false. Without any factual support, Mr. McLynas claims that: © “The documents evidence the illegal use of a Stingray Tracking Device on defendant James McLynas without the required warrant.” © “On the tenth [sic] day when the documents were due by court order, the charges were dropped so that they did not have to turn over the documents.” © “Attorney Rozelle was also instrumental in working with the State Attorney’ s Office to violate Brady law by refusing to either acknowledge the existence of, or turn over the Stingray documents as required by Brady in all criminal cases.” © “The Stingray documents . . . were in the possession and legal control of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office on 9-8-15.”First, Mr. McLynas’s claim that the cell site simulator was used “legally” and without a warrant is untrue, The State Attomey’s Office provided a copy of the warrant for the use of the cell site simulator to Mr. McLynas’s attorney.’ (Exhibit 7.) Mr. McLynas even attached a copy of the warrant application to his Bar complaint. Mr. McLynas has no evidence that the cell site simulator was used illegally or without a warrant or that I had any involvement in the warrant application or the use of the cell site simulator to find him. Second, Mr. McLynas claims that his felony charge of battery on an elderly person was dropped to avoid producing the cell site simulator documents. As noted, I provided the documents to the State before the State “dropped” the charges. Furthermore, I have no authority to “drop” charges because prosecutorial authority is Constitutionally allocated solely to the State Attomey for the Sixth Judicial Circuit. Fla. Const. art. V, § 17, cl. 2. Moreover, the documents were later provided by the State to Mr. McLynas’s attomey. (See n. 3 & Exhibit 8.) Third, Mr. McLynas accuses me of violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). I ‘was not involved in the discovery process or any of the State’s Brady obligations. I did not see any discovery documents, I did not sign any discovery documents, and I was not consulted or contacted by anyone about the State’s discovery obligations including whether the cell site simulator was used in connection with Mr. McLynas. The State filed an answer to Mr. McLynas’s demand for discovery on December 8, 2014, long before my first involvement in this matter. (Exhibit 8.) Finally, Mr. McLynas claims the “Stingray documents” were in the possession and legal control of the PCSO on September 8, 2015. This is not an accusation directed at me personally > Exhibit 7 is a copy of the pleading provided to Mr. Theophilopoulos. The warrant, warrant application, and other documents are not attached but are available on request. 6but rather a claim that the PCSO had the “documents.” I did not have possession or knowledge of any documents regarding the use of the cell site simulator to locate Mr. McLynas until after the September 8, 2015 hearing, when [ learned that the State Attomey’s Office had created the warrant application and that the PCSO did not have a copy of that warrant application. In conclusion, I made the statement to Mr. Theophilopoulos that Mr. MeLynas reports T ‘made: that no such documents existed regarding the use of a cell site simulator on Mr. MeL ynas because the PCSO did not use any such technology on Mr. McLynas. I believed that statement to be true based on the information I was given. When I leamed that the cell site simulator was used to find Mr. McLynas and that documents existed related to locating Mr. McLynas using the cell site simulator, immediately gathered those documents and gave them to the State Attorney's Office for distribution. When I made the statement to Mr. Theophilopoulos, it was not dishonest or a misrepresentation, nor was my statement in any manner involved with the prosecution of Mr. McLynas. Accordingly, The Florida Bar should dismiss this complaint because the facts before it show that I did not violate any rules of The Florida Bar. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that the foregoing facts are true, correct and complete. Cod ©, Lard — Deaenvee , Zoib DateWeschler,Tara rom: Taaffe Mollie ent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 3:21 PM To: karquy12@yahoo.com Subject: FW: PCSO Records Request 05241500055 Mr. Metynas, In response to your public record request dated May 24, 201: 1. The information you requested is not available as a public record at this time; itis exempt from disclosure under Florida Statutes §119.071(2)(c), §119.071(2\(d) and §119.071(1)(f. 2. The information you requested is not available as a public record at this time; itis exempt from disclosure under Florida Statutes §119.071(2){c), §119.071(2\(d) and §119.071(1)(0. 3. No records responsive. 4. No records responsive. Thank you, Molt Kc Traffe Public Records Procesing Unt, Supervisor Pinas County serfs Ofte 10750 Uimertan oad "0, #33778 From: J Melynn (mallto:karguv12@vahoo.com| Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 5:41 PM. To: Driver,Tammy Subject: PCSO Records Request 05241500055, At this time I am filing a records request for the following records under both Florida Statute Title X, Chapter 119 and the Florida Constitution. 1. Any and all documents showing the possession or acquisition by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office of "Stingray" or any other form of "Cell Site Stimulator” that tracks or monitors cell phone location or activity. 2. Any documentation that "Stingray", or any other form of "Cell Site Stimulator” was used to find or track any phone owned or operated by James MeLynas on October 30, 2013, or any other date or time. 3. Any application for warrant requested by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office for any surveillance or any form of monitoring for James MeLynas. 4. Any application for any form of warrant for any purpose or reason related to James McLynas from any time frame. James McLynas EXHIBIT 1Filing # 31720630 E-Filed 09/04/2015 11:05:12 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 13-17233CFANO v UCN: 522013CFO1723SXXXNO- JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS, Defendant. MOTION OF SHERIFF BOB GUALTIERI TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BOB GUALTIERT, as Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida (hereinafter “Sheriff Gualtieri"), by and through the undersigned counsel hereby moves this Honorable Court to quash the Subpoena for Deposition issued by Defendant James MeL ynas in the above-captioned case and for a protective order that the deposition discovery and testimony sought not be had. As grounds for and in support of this Motion, Sheriff Gualtieri states as follows: 1, The above-styled case involves a single count of battery on a person 65 years of age or older, Fla. Stat. § 784.03, 2. The undersigned counsel represents to this Honorable Court that Sheriff Gualtieri has no personal knowledge of this case. 3. The State has not listed Sheriff Gualtieri as a category A, B, or C witness pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(6)(1A). 4, Nevertheless, on September 3, 2015, Sheriff Gualtieci was served with @ Subpoena for Deposition issued by Defendant's counsel to appear for the taking of his deposition EXHIBIT 2on September 11, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. at the Criminal Justice Center, Victim Witness Center, Suite 1100, 14250 - 49 Street North, Clearwater, FL. 33758 (hereinafter the “Subpoena”).. 5. Notonly is he without any personal knowledge as to this matter, Sheriff Gualtieri, as the Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is a constitutional officer and, as such, is the head of the agency. 6. An agency head cannot be subject to deposition “unless and until the opposing party has exhausted other discovery and can demonstrate that the agency head is uniquely able to provide relevant information which cannot be obtained from other sources.” Department of Agriculture & Consumer Servs. v. Broward County, 810 So. 2d 1056, 1058-59 (Ist DCA 2002) (emphasis added). See Florida Office of Ins. Reg. v. Florida Dep't of Fin. Servs., 159 So. 3d 945, 947 (Ist DCA 2015) (same); see also Lenoce v, Pasco County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 3 So, 3d 328, 328 (24 DCA 2009) (per curiam dismissal of certiorari petition based on applicability of apex doctrine). Otherwise, agency heads like Sheriff Gualtieri would be subject to being deposed in virtually every case to the detriment of the operation of the agency and the efficient provision of government services to the taxpaying public. 7. Sheriff Gualtieri also notes that this case is nearly two years old and that a year ago Plaintiff sought — and was denied — discovery from him and this agency of a scurrilous and prurient nature that was totally irrelevant and immaterial and served no purpose other than to obfuscate and distract from any legitimate issue before this Court. Defendant's last-minute effort to depose Sheriff Gualtieri appears to be in the same vein and accomplishes nothing other than to delay the efficient conclusion of this case. If there were a legitimate basis for deposing Sheriff Gualtieri, Defendant would have raised it prior to the eve of trial8. Omreceiving the subpoena, the undersigned counse! called counsel for Defendant in an effort to resolve this issue and avoid troubling the Court with it. Unfortunately, the undersigned was unsuccessful in reaching Defendant’s counsel. WHEREFORE, Sheriff Gualtieri respectfully requests the Court enter an order quashing the Subpoena and prohibiting the discovery and testimony sought from Sheriff Gualtieri from being had. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UCERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Quash and/or Motion for Protective Order has been furnished by email to Gerasimos “Jerry” ‘Theophilopoutos, attomevieryi@email.com, 1247 S. Pinellas Avenue, Tarpon Springs, FL. 34689, and by inter- office maif to Jason Thomas, Assistant State Attomey, on September 4, 2015. PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE Paul G. Rozelle Senior Associate Counsel FBN: 75948 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, FL 33778 Telephone: (727) 382-6274. Facsimile: (727) 582-6459 Prozelle@pesonetcom Amarcottl@pesonet.com Attomey for Pinellas County Sheriff's OfficeFiling # 31365958 E-Filed 08/26/2015 05:55:03 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, REF: 1317235CFANO 522013CE017235XXXXNO vs. JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS 3003389 Defendant. / MOTION TO COMPEL ‘The Defendant, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to compel the State of Florida and/or the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office to provide the following: L ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTATION AND RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE USE OF A “CELL SITE SIMULATOR” ALSO KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC AS A “STINGRAY” THAT WAS USED TO FIND, LISTEN, RECORD OR TRACK ANY PHONE OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE DEFENDANT, JAMES MCLYNAS, FROM JANUARY 2013 UNTIL AUGUST 1, 2015, and; 2, THE 911 CALL MADE BY RIA MAHABIR AS THE ONLY COPY PROVIDED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL IS A REDACTED COP" 3. ANY AND ALE “OFFICER SAFETY BULLETINS” OR THE LIKE REGARDING JAMES MCLYNAS FROM 2011 THROUGH 2015 (TO DATE): AND AS GROUNDS FOR THE TWO REQUESTS TO COMPEL THE DEFENSE, STATES AS FOLLOWS: EXHIBIT 3 ***ELECTRONICALLY FILED 8/26/2015 5:55:03 PM: KEN BURKE, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, PINELLAS COUNTY“**b The Defendant is charged with allegedly committing a Battery on a Person 65 Years of Age or Older on August 1, 2013, wherein he allegedly sprayed 2 ‘women, who was trespassing at his residence, with water from a yard hose on the pant legs of her clothing while he was watering plants on the porch at his domicile. ‘The “Cell Site Simulator” information that is being requested by the Defendant ‘was originally requested through a Public Records Request on May 24, 2015. 1 response to the Defendant's Cell Site Simulator public records request, the PCSO merely responded via email indicating that the information was exempt from disclosure under Florida Starutes. However, where documents did notexist the PCSO responded as such (See PCSO response attached as Exhibit A.) Based on the PCSO response to Mr. MeLynas’, it appears that the PCSO has used a“Cell Site Simulator” to track and intercept Mr. MeL ynas’ calls texts and ‘emails, voicemail and thus this information is relevant to the current case and the ‘manner in which the PCSO has handled this investigation. Cell site simulators are sometimes called “digital analyzers” or “TMSI catchers,” in reference to the unique identifier—or international mobile subscriber identity —of wireless devices. ‘The Cell Site Simulators are also often referred to as Stingrays, Triggerfish, Kingfish and Hallstorm. A cell site simulator impersonates a wireless provider's cell tower, prompting cell phones and other wireless devices to communicate with it. The devices are small enough to fit ina police vehiole or even to be carried by hand. Cell site simulators can identify the telephone numbers, unique identifying‘The Defeudant is charged with allegedly committing a Battery on a Person 65 ‘Years of Age or Older on August 1, 2013, wherein he allegedly sprayed 2 ‘woman, who was trespassing at his residence, with water from a yard hose on the pant legs of her clothing while he was watering plants on the porch at his domicile, ‘The “Cell Site Simulator” information that is being requested by the Defendant ‘was originally requested through a Public Records Request on May 24, 2015. {In response to the Defendant's Cell Site Simulator public records request, the PCSO merely responded via email indicating that the information was exempt ‘from disclosure under Florida Statutes. However, where documents did not exist the PCSO responded as such (See PCSO response attached as Exhibit A.) Based on the PCSO response to Mr. McLynas’, it appears that the PCSO has used a “Cell Site Simulator” to track and intercept Mr. MeL ynas’ calls, texts and emails, voicemail and thus this information is relevantto the current case and the ‘mannet in which the PCSO has handled this investigation. Cll site simulators are sometimes called “digital analyzers” or “IMSI catchers,” in reference to the unique identifier—or international mobile subscriber identity—of wireless devices. ‘The Cell Site Simulators are also often referred to as Stingrays, Triggerfish, Kingfish and Hailstorm. A call site simulator impersonates a wircless provider's cell tower, prompting cell phones and other wireless devices to communicate with it ‘The devices are small enough to fit in a police vehicle or even to be carried by hand. Coll site simulators can identify the telephone numbers, unique identifyingnumbers, and locations of all cell phones in range, and can log the phone ‘numbers called and texted by a connected phone. A cell site simulator impersonates a wireless provider's cell tower, prompting cell phones and other wireless devices to communicate with it . Some models of cll site simulators have the capacity to intercept the contents of cell phone communications, in addition to logging phone identity, location information, and call routing data. It is unknown which model the PCSO has i. their possession. ‘The federal government has disclosed its use of cell site simulators in criminal investigations, including in specific cases. See, ¢.g,, United States v. Rigmaiden, No. CR 08-814-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 1932800, at *15 (D. Ariz. May 8, 3013) (“The government has stipulated ... [that] [t]he mobile tracking device used by ‘the FBI to locate the aircard functions as a cel-site simulator). . Florida law enforcement agencies both large and small have also publicly disclosed their purchase and use of cell site simulators. For example, the Florida. Department of Law Enforcement has released records explaining that it “kas spent more than $3 million buying a fleet of Stingrays,” which it makes available to local law enforcement agencies. “That this requested information is in the actual or constructive possession of the Stale Attomey and appears to be within the actual possession of the Pinellas ‘County Sheriff's Office (aereinafter PCSO) based on Defendant's public records requests, . That this information is being withheld and is unavailable to the Defendant and the Defendant is unable to procure this information without this Honorable Court’s assistance... Upon information and belief, Mr. James McLynas has been targeted by Sheriff Gualtieri and the PCSO as he has instigated several internal affairs complaints against Deputies, including former Deputy Paul Martin, who was eventually fired (Gee Exhibit B). Furthermore, Sheriff Bob Gualtieri stated in an email dated August 2, 2013 that Mr, McLynas filed an unfounded internal affairs complaint against former Deputy Paul Martin for accessing both the Defendant's and Kim Harwell’s DHSMV DAVID information. However, it turned out that Mr. McLynas’ allegations were true that former Deputy Paul Martin accessed Mr. McLynas" DAVID information as well as that of Kim Harwell’s, (See Exhibit C). Multiple heated, adversarial email exchanges occurred between Mr. McLynas and Sheriff Gualtieri with regards to former Deputy Paul Martin (See Exhibit D). 5. Sheriff Gualtieri has also pulled Mr. MeLynas’ DAVID- DHSMV information (See Exhibit E). ‘Based upon information and belief, it is the Defense’s position that the Sheriff and or his supervisors, ordered Deputy Sean Moran to follow up the investigation of the Defendant that is the subject of this case. Several days after the alleged incident, Deputy Sean Moran was ordered to re-interview the friend and witness of the victim (Ria Mahabir) in order to make a case against Mr. MeLynas, The reason for this command was that Mr. MeLynas has caused and continues to canse internal problems within the PCSO that have even led to firing within the Department (former Deputy Paul Martin) and thus the Sheriff and his appointed supervisors have targeted Mr. MeLynas. (See Excerpt of Deposition of Deputy Moran attached as Exhibit F). ‘After Deputy Moran was instructed by “supervisors” to further question thefriend of the alleged victim, Ria Mahabir, Ms, Mahabir then took the position that the alleged victim was soaked with the water hose by Mr. MeLynas, position that the alleged victim has denied under oath. v. Deputy Moran also followed up with the alleged victim, Brenda Woolridge, the following day after the incident. Brenda Woolridge never told Deputy Moran on the day in question that her shoes and pants were wet, however, that changed after the follow up call from Deputy Moran (See Excerpt of Deposition of Brenda Woolridge attached as Exhibit G). w. Mr. McLynas has had an adversarial relationship with the PCSO and the items requested are relevant in order to prove motive and bias on bebalf ofthe PCSO in their handling of the investigation and they are needed in order to properly defend Mr. McLynas and cross examine members of the PCSO. THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Bernie McCabe, State Attomey, Criminal Justice Center, 14250 49" Street North, Clearwater, Florida 33762 this ‘August 26, 2015 via U.S. Mail. Tieephtopudss GERASIMOS “JERRY” THEOPHILOPOULOS, ESQ. [ATTORNEWERRVT@ GMAIL.COM Attorney for Defendant 1247 South Pinellas Ave. Tarpon Springs, 1 34689 (727) 945-4142 Florida Bar number 068380IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, REF: 1317235CFANO- 522013CF017235XXXXNO- vs. JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS, 3003389 Defendant. / KEN BURKE ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CQMREE CIRCUIT COURT THIS CAUSE, having come before the court on September 8, 2015 on. Defendant's Motion To Compel, and the Court having considered the evidence and argument, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, does ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: ‘The Defendant's Motion To Compe! is GRANTED, and 1. Any information, documentation, or records, gathered by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office from a Cell Site Simulator from January 2013 through August 1, 2015, regarding the Defendant, James Edward McLynas, is to be provided to the Defense within 15 days if such information, documentation, or records exist; 2. The State Attomey’s Office is to provide an un-redacted 911 recording call made by Ria Mahabir to the Defense if it exists, within 15 days; 3. The Sheriff's Office is to provide any and all Safety Bulletins regarding the ‘Defendant, James Edward McLynas from 2011 though September 8, 2015, if such Safety Bulletins exist. DONE AND ORDERED in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida this 24% day of September 2015, Ged— The Honorable Judge Thane Covert Circuit Court Judge EXHIBIT 4IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA, Case No. 13-17235CFANO v. UCN: 522013CFOIT235XXXNO |. 8s JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS, lez Defendant. ; Bes / wv & aa sah = ae 2 38 # 3 3g ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF SHERIFF BOB GUALTIERY’ ‘TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDEE® .ges & 8 THIS CAUSE came before the Court for consideration at a hearing on September & 2015, on the Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order filed by Bob Gualtieri, as ‘Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida (hereinafter “Sheriff Gualtieri”). ‘The Court having heard argument from the State, counsel for Defendant, and Sheriff Gualtieri and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, itis: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: Sheriff Gualtieri's Motion to Quash is hereby GRANTED. For the reasons set i forth in the motion, and because the discovery sought is not relevant, the Subpocna for Deposition directed to Sheriff Gualticri is hereby quashed, and discovery and testimony is not to be had from Sheriff Gualtieri in connection with this case. A subpoena directed by Defendant to Sheriff Gualtieri for his testimony at the uy 2 trial of this matter is hereby quashed for the same reasons. DONE AND ORDERED, in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, on September _// , 2015. HONORABLE THANE, con Circuit Judge Copies to: Gerasimos “Jerry” Theophilopoulos, Esquite Paul G. Rozelle, Sr. Associate Counsel EXHIBIT 5THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY 1317235CFANO-C 522013CE017235XXXXNO STATE OF FLORIDA ve BATTERY ON A PERSON 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS PID: 3003389 NOLLE PROSEQUI TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-STYLED CouRT: You will please enter a Nolle Prosequi as to JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS, in the above-entitled cause for the reason that further investigation of this case by the State Attorney's Office has revealed that further prosecution is not warranted. Dated this 2¢7“iay of September, 2015. BERNIE McCABE, State Attorney six dicks; (Kendall S. Davidson Assistant State Attorney (Nolle/9420) 3 a: 2 2 EXHIBIT 6 2 “Sees tt re PROSSED ae i CienaTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY 1318279CFANO-c 522013CFO18279XxXxNO STATE OF FLORIDA vv. JAMES EDWARD MCLYNAS PID: 3003389 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY Pursuant to Rule 3.220, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the following constitutes a list of additional discovery which may be relevant to the offense charged or to any defense of the people charged with respect thereto: EVIDENCE: Documents responsive to Order to Compel (72 Pages) I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above has been. furnished to JERRY S THEOPHILOPOULOS, Attorney, THE CROW LAW GROUP P A, 1247 S PINELLAS AVENUE, TARPON SPRINGS, FL 34689, marialitigation@gmail.com, Bs eee or personal service or = u.8. Mail this _/ 2aay of ¥ ue BERNIE MCCABE, State Attorney Sixth Jugicial Circuit of Florida ) is By: © ssistarf State Attorney Bar No. 667250 SA6eservicelco.pinellas. fl.us P.0. Box 5028 Clearwater, Florida 33758 (727) 464-6221 EXHIBIT 7FUGA 8:56 PM CACNS IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT FOR PASCO/PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA (CRC13~17235CFANO-C James Edward MeLynas NS WER TO ae PID: 03003389 FOR DISCO’ The state of Florida, through the State Attorney of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, pursuant to defendant's Notice of Discovery and Rule 3.220 RCrP, submits the following information: 1. The names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information which may be relevant to the offense charged, and to any defense theretg oz3to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial, are sct forth in the witesgi lise as there may be fuithdr} ndies and sel Taatite th SER BP 3 2. The witness list is not all-inclusive addresses contained in witness statenents and police r The following itens as indicated are in the state's possessibi ‘bb forttol ai available for your inspection at the state Attorney's Office upon timely and reasonable notice, If you dasire ter copy and/ar photoscaph sank, ‘copies will be pisididg woes Yeer Signed seceipt. The name(s) of confidential’ informant (s) will not be sigpiied untae: BedeeTsntend® to uae sane a0 wltacos(en) at he trial os unless ofdaced by Shear PNR aio Statenents given by persons listed in paragraph "1" above. a: b. Written, recorded and/or oral statements of the accused. ria c. Written, recorded and/or oral statements of co-defendants. a 4. Material or information provided by a confidential inforner. €. Tangible papers not obtained from or belonging to accused waich the State intends to use at hearing or trial. ar oo £. Tangible papers obtained from or belonging to accused. rs 4. Electronic surveillance of premises of accused or of conversations to which accused was party. woo A, Documents relating to search or seizure. wo 1. Reports or statenents of experts. ao 4. ALL tangible objects as provided by RCrP 3.220, unless otherwise indicated below, May be inspected, photographed, or tested during regular and ordinary business hours ate a Pepe b. Tis document will serve as authorization for the attorney for the defendant, oz his desicnated representative, to conduct ‘Giscovery of tangible objects, Ih thIs Case, with reference to law enforcement case nufibers as follows: at I= Sa5C35 bet, 5. By this Answer to Demand for Discovery, the State expects the defendant to Submit a corresponding witness list and exhibit list within fifteen days and comply with all requirements of RCEP 3.220 6. Ar this time, the State is aware of the following evidence which falls within the purview of RCE 3.220(b) (4), if any: SACTCOL (10/10) EXHIBIT 8