Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page1 of 8 1 CHRISTOPHER J. CANNON, State Bar No. 88034 MATTHEW A. LAWS, State Bar No. 273697 2 Sugarman & Cannon 3 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2350 San Francisco, CA 94104 4 Telephone: 415-362-6252 Facsimile: 415-362-6431 5 Attorneys for Defendant DEANTE KINCAID 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. CR 13-00818-PJH Plaintiff, vs. DEANTE KINCAID, PURVIS ELLIS, DAMIEN 13 MCDANIEL, AND JOSEPH PENNYMON, 14 ALL DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SEARCH AND DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE Date: May 13, 2015 Time: 1:30 pm Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Defendants. 15 16 TO: United States of America, Plaintiff; Melinda Haag, United States Attorney; and Joseph Alioto, 17 Assistant United States Attorney: 18 19 20 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 13, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, defendants Deante Kincaid, Purvis Ellis, Joseph Pennymon, and Damien McDaniel will and hereby move the Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3504(a) and 21 22 23 Northern District of California Local Rule 16-1(c) (1) to Order the government to search for and disclose all information related to electronic surveillance of the defendants in this case or any evidence obtained 24 related to this case as a result of electronic surveillance. 25 Dated: February 6, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 26 /s/ Christopher J. Cannon Matthew A. Laws Attorneys for Deante Kincaid On Behalf of All Defendants 27 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 1 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page2 of 8 1 2 INTRODUCTION 18 U.S.C. section 3504(a), requires the government to "affirm or deny" the existence of electronic 3 or other surveillance when a party has claimed that such surveillance has produced evidence against him. 4 United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973). This Motion constitutes a claim of surveillance; 5 and a request for specifics regarding that surveillance. While Ninth Circuit precedent requires nothing 6 7 more than a “mere assertion” of unlawful surveillance in order to trigger the government’s obligation to 8 provide an unequivocal response; (United States v. Vielguth, 502 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9 Cir. 1974)); this 9 Motion provides concrete and specific factual support for its claim that the Oakland police department 10 conducted warrantless and illegal electronic surveillance. Once the defendant's burden is met, the 11 12 government must “affirm or deny” the existence of illegal electronic or other surveillance. United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir.1973). 13 14 15 Typically, the specificity required of the government's response is “measured by the specificity and strength of the [defendant’s] allegations,” and a “general unsupportable claim requires only a general 16 response.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 437 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). However, 17 redactions to the discovery produced by the government indicate an attempt to keep the existence of 18 electronic surveillance hidden from the defense. Because the government has attempted to conceal 19 information that would aid the defense in its discovery, the defense feels it is reasonable to assume 20 additional information may have been suppressed that would aid the development of claims of electronic 21 22 surveillance. The government should not benefit from these redactions and therefore its response should 23 not be measured by the specificity and strength of the defense’s allegations. 24 If the government's search reveals that defendant has been exposed to electronic surveillance, or 25 such surveillance has been directed at him, the defense requests the Court order the government to 26 produce all information related to the surveillance to the defense so that it may evaluate and challenge its 27 legality. If, on the other hand, the government's search discloses no record of electronic surveillance in 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 2 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page3 of 8 1 this case, then defendant requests that a sworn declaration be submitted reporting the efforts made by the 2 government to discover the existence of the surveillance which defendant believes has occurred. 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 4 The government has produced Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) logs which suggest that the 5 6 Oakland police department (“OPD”) was using electronic surveillance techniques to track the defendants 7 in this case. Exhibit A is a page from a CAD log produced to the defense in the government’s initial 8 round of production. The CAD log from which Exhibit A was extracted was missing a number of pages 9 when produced to the defense. Exhibit A contains a line that reads “CRUM ADV LOCK ON PHONE.” 10 11 Three lines below, the CAD log contains two lines which read “2L82 TO ALL UNITS. [REDACTION] PING SUSP PHONE IN BLDG TWDS REAR STILL WORKING ON OTHER THINGS BELIEVES 12 13 14 FRIEND OF SUSP IS IN BLDG.” Exhibit B is the same page from the CAD log, but it was produced to the defense several months 15 after Exhibit A, after the defense requested the government produce a complete CAD log without 16 missing pages. Exhibit B still contains the same line that reads “CRUM ADV LOCK ON PHONE,” 17 however the line referring to pinging a suspect phone has been redacted. 18 The defense has not been provided warrants, applications, or court orders authorizing the 19 “pinging” of any phones, nor the collection real-time cell site or GPS data, nor any authorization for the 20 21 22 equivalent of a wiretap. Other items produced in discovery indicate that OPD requested cell site data and PEN register 23 information from at least two cell phones related to this case. Exhibit C contains pages faxed to Metro 24 PCS from OPD requesting the creation of a PEN register, cell site locations, packet data, and call detail 25 records. Exhibit D contains faxed pages requesting an AMA search, call detail records, cell site data, and 26 the creation of a PEN register. Excel spreadsheets produced to the defense indicate that OPD received 27 call records and cell site data in response to the requests contained in Exhibits C and D. 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 3 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page4 of 8 1 The defense has not been provided warrants, applications, or court orders authorizing the creation 2 of any PEN registers, the collection of historical cell site or GPS data, or the release of call records. 3 Records disclosed by the city of Oakland pursuant to California state public records requests 4 indicate that OPD employs a “Stingray” unit to conduct electronic surveillance. Exhibit E contains a 5 6 memorandum which acknowledges that the Oakland police department has used electronic surveillance, 7 including Stingrays, for the “monitoring, tracking, and apprehension of criminals.” The memorandum 8 states that electronic surveillance has been used to assist the fugitive task force. Exhibit E also contains 9 what appears to be records of OPD cases in which electronic surveillance has been deployed, including 10 the use of a Stingray device. 11 Exhibit F is a report of investigation from the United States Marshals Service which details the 12 13 14 arrest of defendant Kincaid through the cooperation of the fugitive task force. The memorandum contained in Exhibit E, which states that OPD has used electronic surveillance to assist the fugitive task 15 force, combined with the report in Exhibit F documenting the fugitive task force’s assistance in 16 Kincaid’s arrest supports a colorable claim that electronic surveillance may have been used by either 17 OPD or the Marshals Service. 18 ARGUMENT 19 20 I. UPON PROPER REQUEST THE GOVERNMENT MUST AFFIRM OR DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ELECTRONIC OR OTHER SURVEILLANCE. 21 A. 22 23 Nothing more than a mere assertion is required when the requesting party claims they were subjected to surveillance. Under 18 U.S.C. section 3504(a), the government is required to "affirm or deny" the existence of 24 electronic or other surveillance when a party has claimed that such surveillance has produced evidence 25 against him. United States v. Alter, 482 F.2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973). In United States v. Vielguth, the 26 Ninth Circuit distinguished between claims made by a party alleging surveillance of themselves versus 27 surveillance that encompassed only third parties. United States v. Vielguth, 502 F.2d 1257, 1258 (9th 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 4 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page5 of 8 1 Cir. 1974). The specificity required to trigger the government’s duty to “affirm or deny” the existence of 2 electronic surveillance when made by a party claiming they themselves were surveilled is minimal. “In 3 Vielguth, the Ninth Circuit held that the government's obligation to affirm or deny the occurrence of 4 electronic surveillance under section 3504(a)(1) ‘is triggered by the mere assertion that unlawful 5 6 wiretapping has been used against a party.’ ” In re Nat'l Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records 7 Litig., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Tobias, 8 836 F.2d 449, 453 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1988) (“As we explained in United States v. Vielguth, [citation], the 9 claimant must establish a prima facie case under Alter only if he alleges ‘unlawful surveillance of 10 11 conversations in which he did not participate.’ ” [emphasis in original]). The Court in Vielguth explained its reasoning in a footnote: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Requiring the government to affirm or deny the existence of illegal surveillance of witnesses imposes only a minimal additional burden upon the government, but requiring a witness to establish the existence of such surveillance may impose a burden on the witness that he can rarely meet, since, to be effective, electronic surveillance must be concealed from its victim. Requiring more than a claim may encourage the development of more secretive means of illegal surveillance, rather than encourage elimination of such unlawful intrusions. Moreover, requiring a witness to disclose details regarding specific conversations that may have been subjected to surveillance would in itself be an invasion of privacy. United States v. Vielguth, 502 F.2d 1257, 1260 n.4 (9th Cir. 1974). 20 In the case of a criminal defendant, requiring disclosure of details regarding specific 21 22 conversations might embrace more immediate and severe peril by aiding the government in its 23 prosecution or revealing self-incrimination evidence. Therefore, even an unsupported claim of illegal 24 electronic surveillance by a person who would be aggrieved had it occurred is sufficient to require the 25 government to respond under oath. Vielguth, 502 F.2d at 1258-1259. 26 27 Here, the defense has provided specific and concrete examples of surveillance, which is much more than the “mere assertion” required under Vielguth and Alter. Morever, redactions of the CAD 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 5 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page6 of 8 1 produced in discovery, Exhibits A and B, appear to have been applied in order to frustrate the defense’s 2 ability to uncover and substantiate instances of surveillance. 3 4 B. The required response under oath should include all the information “arguably relevant” to the surveillance or a denial that includes the specific agencies and individuals queried during the government’s search. 5 6 7 “Upon a preliminary showing by a criminal defendant that he was the victim of illegal electronic surveillance, the prosecution must unequivocally affirm or deny the use of such surveillance.” United 8 States v. Gardner, 611 F.2d 770, 774 (9th Cir. 1980). The government’s response to a claim of 9 surveillance must be “a responsive factual, unambiguous, and unequivocal affidavit.” United States v. 10 Alter, 482 F.2d 1016, 1027 (9th Cir. 1973). “The specificity of the government's response, and the 11 comprehensiveness of the search upon which the response is based, must be measured against the 12 specificity and support of the witness' allegations to determine whether the government has sufficiently 13 14 responded to the claim.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 773 F.2d 1071, 1072 (9th Cir. 1985); see also In 15 re Grand Jury Investigation, 437 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 2006). 16 If the government admits the existence of electronic surveillance, its response must include all 17 information “arguably relevant” to that surveillance. Under Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 18 (1969), a defendant is entitled to complete unscreened records, transcriptions and supporting affidavits 19 and documents for any electronic surveillance to which he has standing to object. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 We conclude that surveillance records should be turned over to (the defendant) without being screened in camera by the trial judge. Admittedly, there may be much learned from electronic surveillance which ultimately contributes nothing to the probative evidence but winnowing this material from those items which might have made a substantial contribution to the case against petitioner is a task which should not be entrusted wholly to a court in the first instance. An apparently innocent phase, a chance remark, a reference to what appears to be a neutral person or event, the identity of a caller of the individual on the other end of a telephone or even the manner of speaking or using words may have special significance to one who knows the more intimate facts of an accused's life. 28 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 6 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page7 of 8 1 Alderman, 394 U.S. at 182. 2 3 If, on the other hand, the government denies the existence of electronic surveillance involving the defendant, its denial must be "factual, unambiguous and unequivocal." United States v. Alter, clearly 4 sets forth the requirements for an adequate denial. Although the government responded in that case by 5 6 affidavit as required and the affidavit contained a list of agencies to which inquiries had been directed, 7 the response was insufficient: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (The United States Attorney) speaks in conclusionary terms. He supplied no information about the identity of the person or persons with whom he communicated, the substance of his inquiries, or the substance or the replies. He states no facts from which the court could conclude that the six agencies he lists are the only governmental agencies that could have been involved in electronic surveillance. Nor does the affidavit reveal the dates of the claimed surveillance to which the inquiries we addressed. If any conclusions in the affidavit were later proved wrong, it would be virtually impossible to establish that the affidavit was perjured. Alter, supra, 482 F.2d at 1027. In re Harris, 383 F.Supp. 1036, 1038-1039 (N.D. Cal. 1974), provides a model for an appropriate 16 17 18 governmental response to a claim of surveillance. The Court found the government's response was adequate because it included the names of the individuals contacted at each agency, copies of their 19 response to the inquiry, and most importantly, the denials were unequivocal and did "not suffer from the 20 `to my knowledge' defect disapproving by Chief Judge Chambers in his dissenting opinion in Vielguth." 21 22 In In re Tierney, 465 F.2d 806, 812 (5th Cir. 1972), the government's denial was held to be sufficient because the United States Attorney testified he had checked each investigative agency having 23 anything to do with the case, six in all. The testimony was given under oath and subject to cross24 25 examination. In United State v. Yanagita, 552 F.2d 940 (2nd Cir. 1977), a government affidavit denying 26 surveillance based upon a check with the only investigative agency directly involved in the case was held 27 sufficient because the section 3504 claim was made during trial, long after the defendant knew the facts 28 asserted as the basis of the claim, and a check of all the agencies which might have been involved in ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 7 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78 Filed02/06/15 Page8 of 8 1 surveillance activities would have taken several week and would have disrupted the trial. 2 3 4 5 6 7 During a continuing grand jury proceedings, the usual setting for claims under section 3504, time is usually not as much of the essence as during trial because the grand jury sits for a much longer period of time than the average trial jury and thus may recall a witness after his section 3504 request has been answered. Under these circumstances, a 3504 request will rarely be rejected as untimely, and the government has been held to a high standard of completeness in responding to such a request. Yanagita, 552 F.2d at 943-944. 8 During pretrial proceedings, these time restraints are not present. Here, the Court has not yet set a 9 10 trial date and therefore a more thorough check is required than what the Court in Yanagita deemed 11 acceptable. If the government denies the existence of surveillance, the government will have ample time 12 to conduct a thorough search. The government should respond by sworn affidavit and detail the manner 13 and extent of its inquiry, including the individuals the government asked regarding the existence of 14 surveillance as well as the responses to the government’s inquiry. 15 CONCLUSION 16 17 18 The defense has presented detailed and supported claims of surveillance to which the government must respond. The defense respectfully requests this Court order the prosecution to conduct a detailed 19 inquiry regarding all surveillance and the evidence gathered from that surveillance in this case. 20 Moreover, the defense requests this Court order the prosecution to respond with a detailed, sworn 21 affidavit that documents the extent of the government’s inquiry as well the individuals and agencies that 22 the government questioned. 23 24 Dated: February 6, 2014 Respectfully submitted, 25 27 /s/ Christopher J. Cannon Matthew A. Laws Attorneys for Deante Kincaid 28 On Behalf of All Defendants 26 ALL DEFENDANTS’ MTN FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE CR 13-00818-PJH 8 Document78?1 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of2 EXHIBIT A Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78?1 Filed02/06/15 Page2 of2 Vii? gimgz mm}. iat?: ??f33513 fime: 324?$ Requ?gagd 3y: ai?f?i?T ?l?se Tlma Type ?ri ?ispm A??xag? Bl?g Ag: Cali?ra Eama ?muniz ?ake; ?garatgz Lacatie? Caller? Time T?a?f?ist mm callerg magma - - - - a A .sxcifzz 95:;3 25 55:23 31g Egg an Rxgya?az xx 13? 23 mva 3,29:ng 5mg? Lzagm 14%;ng 3?5 ml 3363;22 35:13 zezz gang avx 4n 3a .3f?lf22 355:3 25 $31 yg??if?? 35:33 m?wf2a13azzg 25 .Eg?zgzz g5;13 3&3 AQW 2S C?i .EKSZEEQ $5213 M?hf? 25 Ef?lf?? a5:za Fi?? away 23 ggaxz?? naiz? 4&32 TERMS a? RRQCEEB a? Ea?fl?? aemg 3A$x av? 23 aimim $35:me THE 22% Ham mma mm?g? ?g 2% ma gfaz?23 agzz? ESQ am gawgg 1? 23 ?f&1?22 aggm an? La?? am gyamg 3% 1,5813% $5.222 am} smww?m @533 mm 9mm m?m 23 m3 35:22 1?s??gs an FQE igeai lh?? ?$?xag 2% C?g 330132;? 05% 2mg 76%; am, 13mm e- ism: sum? mam im- am: mm Rm STILL :23 3gn1f2? we?xxwg aw Tarmag FQIESB avg? 33 :m?aLna 3% iguzggz :ncidant A$$?aiate? mes 38 Ef?lf?? I??agmci?c La?i??i?i??gii? QPBATE Eyg? :3 $439 2% agzzg I&ag?mcln? Upakwg vraar ?9 a 23 gas 323521;:22 mama Stat magma ALAIN 3gozf?2 Eta: G?f?gjd ER ?La?a cpfagga'?hgwax ca? 3f?if22 Sta: inc: a5:33 Shit $?f2k2? Tm: ??233 u?it Fr: Ea: ?gf?C?z vnits Ramamman?e? ?33 3;?i;22 ?525? ac: 25 CS: Ef?lf?? essgg Qaii?m ta 3&3? 25 $91 3&1: In; L??z3322268?12? 691 5531322 6% 33 Eh?s?a?inc Fri?nt t? 095332? 2% 9&3 zgassacznc UFEATE Dig?a 23 $31 Ef?if?s U?ii? Rgeammgn??a ?91 Bf?if?g Etaa ER Lac; eygg?ae maxmaw ?33 3302522 35:a$ ?nat as tpxag?g ?aa?aw Q91 sfnagzg a5:a? G?it ?n?uay ingw inf: $22 vzxa?g KYLE 3X?i?23 ??it ?ggability ?ag; 2% 2% aka, Rf?if22 gaggz SEQ: RE Lac: ?anxmx 33%;;23 e5:1? gtat av Ef?lf?z aam 1 $3 C63 3f?lf32 ?ggzg ?i?g?witi?n aah?a?v Tm: AEM C63 gzaxfzz a?slg ?tat 3% Lee; a3? 3f?l?22 $5;22 Stat agjamag AK me? magwm? afelgzz rhk??aci?n k$?33?k22?$?313 U??kf? ta p? 1% af?ing ma;a? Unit 0?;2g42 uvmarx? a?&uay {mfa Inf: 1v32 3:91?22 B?it QFEATEB a? Mza??ag ?f?leE 3&3? Ragi?: MIEHAEL gf?afgz Unit nyas?z ?ftia?r 1-cnangeas a?fs??v WHETEJ ?5?1f22 Unit QFFE EIEKQEL ?f?ifx? ??ii GFXESQE 2 ?F3??i 86 Document78?2 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of2 EXHIBIT Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-2 Filed02/06/15 Page2 of 2 Time: Pl\GE: 11:21 Requested I N C I D ENT ::..me Type Pri Dispo R E C I\ :., L Address B:dg l\pt Location BEl\'.f Callers Name P-'..tni t. TEAM/Dist l\REl\ )~ /~ ·::or(RE('TION l\LL TRl\FF FRM HOLMGREN - - NO RESPONSE IN 107 2 Ge•:~ 3 2012 DODG l\VN 4D WHI VIN/lC3CDZ CBlCN23522 9 or;.: l :1 ORI/Cl\00109 00 0Cl\/l3·003!: o71 FCN/113130 2200663 ••I•• 05::3 M!S/22655-5 HLD FOR EVIDENCE 112 . : : /~:: 05: l•i 1,L82 '4 ..~ ;·::s: . !:. /;z;; . :'., .:: ... - ~ 25 '!'0 TEl\MS KNOCKING AT DOORS - IF KNOCKED AT 1CH /107 COME B/\CK OUT 28 28 .:T.:.UM /\:)V :..oc:K ON PHONE . . Sl\YS Cl\ME TO VISIT 1\RO!JND 2S .l.L:.12 COPIES LOP1301220 00117 :2../ ".:.?. (15; 2?· IJ\l\ssocinc Li)Pl 30122000117 UPDT\TE Type ;~/ i.· (;;,: ;:, ~l\l\:;:soc:Inc LOP1301220 00ll 7 UPD/\TE Prior ~B C-18 28 C7$ 28 C78 28 to 3•10B 28 to. 0 28 l\V 05:2~ S~at .~ 1 ~,: ?:::im.:\ry unit OP/2K51 • .. ~ i .: ER L•)C: CP/!:.900 HJ\RMON ER Loe: CP/5900 Hll.RMON To: Fr: OP/2L71 C87 LOPU012200 0117 C78 To: OP/2C62 C78 . ~ ''· . ._ n:. ~ :, ..~ :;r.i ts n.ecommende d ... ,. ...__ o:.: 52 !ncident l\ssociated t.o: 1:.,-~: ·:,1:: ·:..:2;: LOP13012200 012G 25 :'i:·: :.·1 .:i:l\J\ssocinc LOP1301220 00126 UPDATE CallNni to 3L27 Rea:;:signed To: LOPl30l2200 0126 <10:.:3B IN\ssocI:.:i'.: OP/JJ\30 l\E :..oc: Jci: :s Stat 0P/2T16 l\V : --;. l\DM 06:i5 Disposition 2M MT 2M MT ~:::p/:.:=.icn COV To: l\DM Lot;'.: Star: OP/3C65 l\E Loe: CP/5900 HARMON [.;!) :·~') - , ... 1-::: IAJ\ssocinc LOP1301220 00117 UPDJ\TJ? Dispo ~nit OP/2S12 PT !)6:17 Unit OP/2.S42 UPDATED Capability Cap: ~6:17 OFF2 Rl\DIO: Officer 1 Changed: OP/8707 06:17 Unit OP/2S42 OFFl Rl\DIO: 06:17 Uhit Officer 2 Changed: OP87ll OP/2S~Z C87 19 Inf: l\::;:: i:::: 06:·~1 Unit OP/2812 -1£- t.1:i CP/5900 HARMON UPDATED Onduty Info llB/\T:ON F'QR :1.085:1. Incident Associated to: C78 28 (:5: 2·1 05:~-i C9J. 25 : ):.1:.:: n:.: :~ V/\N SLOTEN/DERR ICK SIMMONS LIVE>: 59.;3 HILTON, .";=.; :.:. 25 2$ 1~· TYRONE Hl\RRIS IS THE 2ND MALE Ml\KING CONTl\CT W/ ~: C78 C91 25 l\ON 1719CO 1707CO 8991P ; ;. /:. :. 05: .i. 6 2T:12 MEDI!\ RE:Q PIO l\.T SEM/E 1 7 ·~ 29 25 25 ,·:;::; :)5::'. ENT/ON Cl\LIF FILE ONLY '.:_,1:;: GS: Ti:ne Callei:-s Phone ·:!~:CS:;•, '..,~C/6VEP02!:• LIS/Cl\ LIY/2013 LIT/PC L/2~ !JatE-/ c.:illers l\ddress ): r~:2 05: l 3 IMPOUNDED VEHICLE r:s:: :. ::iooo:::: By: Cl9 V: 17:;:2 2M MT MT MT COOPER, MICH/\EL COOPER, MICHAEL WHITE, DELBERT COOPER, MICHl\EL COOPER) MICHl\EL COOPER, MICHAEL COOPER, MI CHAE:, REPORTS-DOCUMENTS-003390 From: unknown Page: ?ll2 Date: ?ll22l2013 2:45:21 AM Document78-3 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of 3 OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRMINAL INVESTIGATIONS (510) 2334540 EAR (5103 2334030 Facsimile Transmittal Sheet TO: FROM: KEEPER OF RECORDS OF C. Jason. Saunders COMPANY: DATE: METRO PCS 1-21-13 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 1-972?360-2635 3 PHONE NUMBER: REFERENCE NUMBER: 800571-1265 RE: Exigent request YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: URGENT FOR REVIEW [1 PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PURSUANT TO THE EXIGENT REQUEST PLEASE PROVIDE call data records from 1?10-13 until 1-21-13 and start pen. register if phone is active and being used. Emmet-7509 and ?sews/eons PLEASE INFORMATION TO: OFFICER Jason Saunders jssunderst?losklantjgetmm THANK YOU On Line: 7 Remote ID: Document78?3 Filed02/06/15 PageZ of3 EXHIBIT I From: unknown Page: 2/2 Date: 1/22/2013 2:45:22 AM Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-3 .Filed02/06/15 Page3 of 3 MetroPCS GALEA Pen and Wiretap Worksheet 2250 Lakeside Blvd. Richardson, TX 75032 Phone: 0006714265. option 4 Fax Intercepts: 972-860-2635 Email Intercepts: subgoenasg?metrogcscorn Email Inquiries: esu@metrogcs.com Law Enforcement. please leginy complete the form, initialize and date below. Step 1: Review the Court Order 69 Court Order Number: Exigem request Do the name. address. and serial number match the yes no Does the court order authorize cell site locations? yes no Does the court order authorize packet data? yes no Does the court order authorize historical call detail records? yes no If call detail records are authorized. what is the time frame?' CD Page No Does the court order authorize historical text messages? yes no CD Page No What date was the court order signed by the judge? Emgent request Step 2: Data Delivery The case ID always be the NUMBER followed by PEN or WIRE in capital letters. For packet data Intercepts. the Case ID will always be the TARGET NUMBER followed by for 1xi3G data and for LTE data. Note: 46%. TE Handsets will be setup forhoth #6 and tit/'35 data on separate This is because #9 phones are capable of also being served by our tx?G netlrrodts as well. Start Date: End Date: 2'21'13 Merltet Delivery (please list): 5a? CFID Location: Receiving Location: For Title Audio Deliver to: UN DH For IRI (HIE) Deliver to: Port) For Content (HIS) Deliver to: Port) MetroPCS subscribers are able to use their handsets when traveling to other MetroPCS marketsspecil?jr the markets to be provisioned. in addition, subscribers may use their handsets when traveling outside a MelroPCS mart-let. The LEA rnust provision roaming subscribers through the morning provider: Step 3: Contact and Billing Information Piease provide an email address to return records. Sgt. Elrandwood Oakland Police Case Agent: Law Enforcement Agency: Emmet NW 510?233-3323 FM ND, 510238?3030 Ema", rbrandwood@oaidandnet.com Tech Agent: 1359" saundem Law Enforcement Agency: ?Hand Dance Contact MD. 510-??3-0931 FAX NU 510-2334030 Email_ jsaunders@oaldandnet.com . Oakland Police MES Billing Name and Address. more than One 455 7th St intercept please complete a GALEA worksheet tier each I I 13-053743 Dakla a target number and felt: with the ND: court order under a separate fax (if applicable) 9460? cover. Thank you. A wiretap provides both audio and pen register data. The LEA is responsible tor terminating the duplicate pen register. The minimum charge is $500 for a pen register. have ompi ted section ofthe CALEA form and the information is true and correct. Agent Initials: .. .. 5E . Date: Ll 'l ?3 K5 On Line: 7 Remote ID: Document78?4 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of3 EXHIBIT From: 4347733265 Page: Date: ?ll22l2013 2:29:48 AM Document78-4 Filed02/06/15 Page2 Of 3 . TRANSMISSION metroP 2250 LakeSide Richardson, TX 75082. 1?800-571?1265 TargetN'umber: 575' 76'? 7?56? Subpoena Compliance Department Fax to 5:00pm CST. After Hours On[v** - MetroPCS DanVille, VA Fax: (434) 773-3265 DATE: 1&3 Jg?i "To; - 5 wag/l; FROM: I _LeeArthur - . 9?7; eggs; NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER): MESSAGE Return to 434-773-3265 PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED REQUEST. HAVE THE SUPERVISOR OR LIEUTENANT SIGN WHEN COMPLETED. RETURN TO FAX NUMBER 434-773-3265 WHEN COMPLETED. PLEASE CALL US AT Laue-5714265; PROMPT 6, TO INFORM US THAT YOU ARE RETURNING THE FAX. Note: Do no fax routine subpoenas or court orders to 4341-7733265. The correcth number for subpoenas and court orders is 972-860r2635. On Line: 1 Remote ID: 4347733265 From: 4347733265 Page: 2l2 Date: ?ll22l2013 2:29:48 AM Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-4. Filed02/06/15 Page3 of 3 2250 Lakmlde Blvd. Rithaedsen,1?x ?75083 . I "Fax 434-773?3265 After Hours and Weekends (Juli.M Fax 972?860-2635 8:00am to 5:00pm EST. Email subpoenu?metrnpesxum ?Fax 972-860526351i-um3mn AM to 5:00 PM CST Only.? EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE REQUEST Please include a return Email and/or Fax Number Law En fn rcem ent Agency Agent?s First and Last Name: Date: _m 721 {2013 AddressJCityIStateIZip: Jason Saunders 455 St Time: _231.5 pm. Oakland, CA 94607 Agent-?5 Primary Contact ?nmber: Target Number). Agent?s Secondary- Contact Number: (Nat Target Number) 5 l0-773-0981 510-233-3753 Agent?s a: Number: - Agent?s Email: (?prr'mary method to receive results) . 510-233-3030 Nature nf the Emergency: Targets were involved in attacking and sheeting an OPD officer tonight. Targets fled the scene with their gun and the of?cer?s gun. Targets are members of a violent West Oakland gang- Botll targetS-have amass to multiple ?rearms and are activer fleeing. Either target may shunt Law Enforcement er citizens to help them ?ee. All requests for cells site locatiens MUST be followed?up by a legal document signed by a JUDGE within 48 I business hours. TERGET phone number: SIG-9044509 Subsc?ber'data AMA search Fertaday?a date ?'om _l-21-13 I??uwmg) to 1-21-13 2359_ (time) Am searches are far 2 ha?r increments and appbz to after how: and weekends ONLY Call Detail Recurds fmm_l-1D-v13__ tD_1-21-13_ (dates) Cell Sites? Yes or El PM PEN Register or Title intercept (Must?ll out CALEA Billing Sheet and send with {he Exigzm Farm) Authorization: Signer unmarizes the requester the retrieval of the requested results, wi?mm?rst obtaining a warrant Printed Name: :Dmm Title: Ll?l?m Date: [hen-by attest that the provided above, to the best vfmy km) ledge, 33 - acumen: and that: an emergency situation aim that involves a] maria-e dangcr 0f aim}: er serious physical ?aier to a pawn. (In) conspiratorial threatening national strer interest. or (my compimrmia! activities of mganizzd crime, that requires a Wire. oral. or communication to he intercepted before an order authorizing moi: furaraw?m can, with due diligence, be albumen; and there rm: 3mm :qnm which an order could be to authorize such interception. clawed: a folinww qf an appropriate order (tuba: required! for the information reqnesttd. befmd to the (Impatience at 97241594535 within #8 hours. Signature of Supervisor to the abeve requester: On Line: 1 Remote ID: 4347733265 Document78?5 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of 20 EXHIBIT .. CITY OF OAKLAND Memdrandum TO: Office of Chief of Police ATTN: Chief Anthony W. Batts FROM: Sergeant Shawn Knight I DATE: 16 Mar 10 RE: Implementation of ESU into the Oakland Police Department The utilization of technology in law enforcement has become increasingly relied upon i within the last couple of years. The?progressive advancements made with this technology, such as PEN registers, Stingrays, and global positioning systems has allovved for the monitoring, tracking, and apprehension of criminals to become much more ef?cient and timely. The Oakland Police Department began implementing and using electronic surveillance equipment in 2001 and it has been used to assist the Fugitive Task Force and Targeted Enforcement Task Forces (TETF 1 and 2) to arrest some of Oakland?s most violent offenders. However, an Electronic Surveillance Unit (ESU) has not been established at OPD and with the increasing demand and workload involved to successfully eXpedite such systems; it is becoming a. challenge and putting OPD at a disadvantage with combating crime. That is why I am proposing that the Oakland Police Department create an Electronic Surveillance Unit. PAST CONFIGURATIOIN: Recently Within the Criminal Investigation Division (CID), there were three specialized units that targeted major offenders and gangs. The Target" Enforcement Task Forces (TETF II) and the Gang Investigations Task Force (GITF). The primary responsibility of TETF is to conduct covert investigations targeting major offenders wanted for crimes and or individuals/gang members involved in criminal activity. The primary reaponsibility of TETF ll was to assist the Homicide Section in locating witnesses and track down and arrest suspects wanted for homicide. .- Although, the above two unit?s reSponsibilities kept them incredibly busy, they were often tasked with additional requests from other sections, such as Robbery, Assault and SVU, for assistance in locating and arresting subjects. It should be noted that 75% of the time TBTF I ll operated together as one unit. This was because of the nature of conducting these operations consisted of covert surveillance, used for locating suSpects and or target,s,'and arrest teams, needed to make the arrest or identify subjects when need be. TETF I is partnered up with the FBI, often making their focus on Violent Crime Major Offenders (VCMO), and Gangs. The TETF 2 was recently disbanded to support patrol. The primary responsibility of the GITF is to identify, locate and investigate gangs and their members in regards to their criminal activity. GITF is partnered up with the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATP), often making their focus into the recovery of firearms. - Mixed Within both TETF Units was the small contingency of ESU officers. They use ESU technology on a daily basis, whether it is writing the court orders for ESU operations, analyzing the information collected, and operating/maintaining the different equipment used in ESU operations. ESU officers also operate and maintain the tactical electronic surveillance equipment used by our Department. It should be noted that ESU officers often assist all sections of the Oakland Police Department and outside agencies. ESU electronic case management technology is expected to be used in some upcoming major operations. ESU officers are always updating and maintaining the Department?s 5 notice; in the event such as th In, keeping it re . urder case'arise. . booting orthe I believe to properly use and maintain ESU technology our department needs to recognized and staff an Electronic Surveillance Unit. Below are some of the duties that ESU officers would be responsible for: - ESU DUTIES: )9 ESU of?cers ,would be trained in writing court orders, to support all sections of the police department, involving Toll Records, Pen Registers, GPS Pings, Hemisphere requests and Wiretap Operations. Work associated with court orders requires having knowledge of the telephone service providers and the technology associated with those systems, the contact information, the CALEA process, and the data of the Lincoln Intercept System. 3? ESU officers will be trained in Toll Analysis, Cell Site Analysis?, and generate case packets associated with these reports. D.o.cu.me.r.1t7.8r5 -P.age4..ot20_ ESU officers will maintain and operate the Department?s Lincoln System and its six intercept stations. ESU officers will be?trained in maintaining and deployment of the Department?s pole attic camera, under the door camera, thin?wall camera, crawl space camera and its command module monitoring station. ESU officers will be trained in maintaining and deployment of the Department?s two surveillance robots, Recon Scout and Robotex Avatar. 3* ESU officers will be trained in maintaining and deployment of the Department?s Stingray van. This includes the Operation system of GPS Microsoft Map Point, VisionTek, VPN remote viewing into the Lincoln System, Stingray System software, and operation of the battery bank inverter systems. It should be noted to become a Stingray operator takes a 40 hour course. ESU of?cers will be trained in maintaining and deployment of the Department?s GPS vehicular tracking devices. ESU officers will be trained to deploy the Department?s covert search kits. ESU officers will be trained to operate the Department?s electronic case management Lincoln System. The officers will support pending wiretap operations and future projects. Case management duties include case Intel, research, data input, and generating reports associated with the projects. ESU of?cers will be trained to operate and manage the Department?s CellBrite, cellular telephone forensics, system. I 3" ESU of?cers will suppert and work with the Intelligence Unit, CID, Patrol, and any other Department?s sections, when requested to do so. I MANAGEMENT DUTIES: Management will be responsible for the day to day operations involving personnel. The management must have knowledge and experience of all the listed systems. Management must know and have personal contact with the companies associated with the Department?s operational systems, such as Harris Corp. ?Stingray?, Penlink inc. ?Lincoln System?, Tracking the World Tradkers?.3 ETC. ETC. Management must be able to train new ESU members on the Department?s oligmtional systems, Management??thSt track and maintainall costs associated with ESU operations and the yearly fees associated iwith the systems. Management must also research . W.- Han. ,1 H. Case4Ll-3ecr-OO-818-PJH? and obtain funding and grants in order to maintain the systems, upgrade the exiSting systems, and the purchase of new equipment. Management must seek out new training for its members and the funding associated with those costs. COLLATERAL DUTIES: All ESU members will be trained and have knowledge of all resources available to them, in regards to any Departmental investigation. ESU members will be able to 'support any requesting Departmental section, in regards to the locating and apprehension of wanted subjects. ESU members will. generate packets containing all material associated with I wanted subjects. These packets will be made available to the requesting sections. The 3 following are resources that ESU members will use: CORPUS, llQ, MCMN, CRIMS, BOSS, LRMS, ENTERSECT, LEADS, FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, CABS, and ECT ECT. - ESU members will obtain knowledge and access on how to properly query these systems, in order to conduct proper investigations. ESU members will also have the knowledge in writing the court orders associated with the legal process in obtaining the requested information. These skills, coupled with skills knowledge, will make ESU members a very Valuable asset to. the Department. The use of ESU personnel will be at the discretion of . the Chief of Police. I believe ESU personnel should be under the control of the Office of Chief of Police. Due to the time required to become suf?cient in ESU operations, the contacts that are made and maintained over the years and the Complexity of certain projects, ESU personnel should be placed in a no-cap assignment, such as the intelligence Unit. To date, there are two personnel trained in ESU operations, myself and Officer I would like to start this unit with two personnel and expand it in time, when resources and funding become more available. It should be noted that two ll personne have some limited ESU training. I would like to continue to tram ese indiv1 ua an have the availability to have their assistance in the future, for any large or complex' ESU erations. Also, I would like to use these individuals during the times that or Officer re not available. PAST OPERATIONS: Case4s-13-cr-OO8l8-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page6 of 20 Below are the listings of past cases, the crimes, and the outcome that the Department?s informal ESU unit has been involved in: Pen-Re'gisterfWiretap 186.22 PC Pen~Register/Wiretap 186.22 PC Pen-Register/Wiretap 186.22 PC Pen?Register/Wiretap 186.66 PC DC Wiretap 186.22 PC . Wiretap 186.22 PC Wiretap 186.22 PC IKC Wiretap 186.22 PC FIELD OPERATIONS Name Crime Technology used 0nteome\- 187(3), 211 PING UC, LA FBI 207 187(21) PEN, FBI Story Operation 245(1)) Atlanta, GA 187(a) . PEN Self surrender 261(a)(l) - PEN, NC 26611, 21 1 266h(a) 209Cb), 236 664/187(a) on WIRE, PEN, Sacramento Police of?cer 211 PEN, Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page? of 20 From Sept. 2006 to present, ESU technology has been reSponsible for 39 violent suspects being taken into custody. Many of these cases involved very fast captures, saving the Department thousands of dollars in fugitive investigations. Also, many of the captures were outside the city of Oakland, which in the past has been problematic in obtaining out of agency cooperation. Using ESU technology during investigations prevents time consuming remote investigations, prior to being able to conduct a surveillance operation. Six cases have not resulted in an ?in?custody status?. This is due to two self surrenders, three dropped phones and one phone located, but not with the listed suspect. It should also be noted that an ESU investigation, involving the preparation and proper planning, has prevented any OPD of?cers from being injured during any ESU operations. Sgt. s. Knight 510/238?3640 . Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page8 of 20' 211 245(0) 215 187(a) 187(a) 187(3) 211', 212.5 246.3 211, 20'? 187(3) 211 on OPD Of?cer 187(21) 187(a) 2 245(a) (2) 187(3) 245(b) 207 m7X2 245(a) (2) 187(3) 187(3) PEN PEN, PEN, PEN, PEN PEN PING PEN, I PEN, PEN, PEN, PEN, PEN, PEN PEN, PEN, PEN PEN, PEN, IXC, Alco case 1/ C, San Leandro case Ixc Ixc, Hayward Not IXC, Sacramento PD UC, Mendocino case case UC, Stockton 7 UC, San Pablo Berkeley San Leandro, . Sacramento PD case San Leandro 11C, Watsonvillc, Santa Clara case . IXC, Sacramento, Sacramento case Stockton Richmond Case4z-13-cr-OO818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/O6/15 Page9 of 20 187(a) 187 21 1 245(a)(2)- 187(a) 187(a) 187(a) 245(a)(1) 207(a) 41mg) 187(a) 187(a) 209(a), 206 . 137(a) I 1-37(a) . 187(a) 187(a?) 211 187(a) 211 192(a) 211- 187(a) 211 PEN PEN, PING PEN, PEN, PING PEN, STNEY PING PEN PEN, PING PEN, PEN, WIRE, PEN PEN, PEN, ETNRY PEN PEN, PEN, PEN, St. Louis, MI Not IXC UC, Sacramento Antioch Modesto Via DOJ San Diego . UC, via FBI Las Vegas Not phone located Subject not in poss. IX C, Denver PD Not IXC DC 1/ C, Sacramento C, Richmond Via PB-I IEC IKC, VIA Sacramento PD Fair?eld ease I Not DC DC Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 PagelO of 20 HARRIS CORP - WIRELESS PRODUCTS GROUP P.O. BOX 9800, R5-11A MELBOURNE. FL 32902-9800 PH: 800~358?5297, FAX: Bill To: Oakland Police Department Jason Saunders JSaunders@oaklandnet.com 455 7th Street Oakland CA 94507 DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENTAND THEINFORMATION iT CONTAINS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW [18 U.S.C.). Harris Proprietary QTE6779-04448 1 Quotation Ship To: Oakland Police Department Jason Saunders JSaunders@oaklandnet.com 455 7th Street Oakland CA 94607 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS HARRIS TRADE SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. THIS DOCUMENTMAY CONTAIN TECHNICAL DATA ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITARJ. 22 CFR CHAPTER 1. SUBC HAPTER M. PARTS 123-1 30) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS (EAR), 15 CFR PARTS 730-774. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS MAY NOT BE EXPQE IED QR SHARED WITH A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUT A VALID EXPORTAUTHORIZATION, BEFORE MAKING OR PERMITTING ANY DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS. WHETHER IN FULL OR IN PART, HARRIS SHALL BE GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE SUCH DISCLOSU RE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. sa limping OAKLAND PHD BEST WAY .?YmEl?] arms: NOTE Delivery 90 days after receipt of PO, reoeipt of unit for upgrade. Prices subject to change. Quotes valid 180 days from issue. Attached Ts&Cs applicable to all orders. I NOTE Purchasing these products is contingent on authorization and approval of the FBI NDA. NOTE Sales Tax has been added to your quote. Please include sales tax on your PC. or provide one of the following documents: Direct Pay Permit, Tax Exempt Certi?cate. or ResaIe Certi?cate. StingRay I to HallStorm Upgrade 2009523-101 Laptop PC HLS-U-SW HailStorm Software HailStorm Software Harpoon PA Kit - Single Band 2100 Harpoon PA Kit Dual Band 850? 900 Harpoon PA Kit - Dual Band 700N300 EA EA EA Es EA EA $120,000.00 $22,000.00 $20,000.00 $18,550.00 $20,200.00 $20,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120,000.00 $0.00 $22,000.00 $20,000.00 $18,550.00 $20,200.00 $20,200.00 Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Pagell of 20 HARRIS CORP - WIRELESS PRODUCTS GROUP PO. BOX 9800, MKS R5-11A MELBOURNE, FL 32902-9800 PH: 800-358-5297, FAX: Harris Proprietary Bill To: I QTE6779-04448 8/12/2013 Quotation Oakland Police Department Jason Saunders JSaunders@oaklandnet.com 455 7th Street Oakland CA 94607 Ship-To: Oakland Police Department Ja unders JSaunders@oaklandnet.com 455 7th Street Oakland CA 94607 DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENTAND THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW (18 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS HARRIS TRADE SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. THIS DOCUMENTMAY CONTAIN TECHNICAL DATA ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR). 22 CFR CHAPTER SUBCHAPTER M, PARTS 123-130) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ?15 CFR PARTS 730-774. THIS DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS MAY N9 I: BE EXPORTED OR SHARED WITH A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUTA VALID EXPORTAUTHORIZATION. BEFORE MAKING OR PERMITTING ANY DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS, WHETHER IN FULLOR IN PART. HARRIS SHALL BE GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE SUCH DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. . :2 E's?swig? OAKLAND Phi 7.9" 1 AmberJack ti to Upgrade TRAIN-WC Training - West Coast SW training TRAIN-WC Training West Coast SW Training NOTE per protocol (unless stated otherwise). 4 scheduling training after receipt of PO. NOTE students maximum. Please 'allow 120 days for Training classes are 12 hours (2 days) per product After PO Is Issued, please call 1?800?358?5297 or 1321-1309-7535 to schedule training. Please have your P.O ready when you call for scheduling. NOTE Customer must provide training facility with LCD projector NOTE Customer must provide their equipment to be used during the training sessions. NOTE Customer must provide a 7 passenger vehicle plus EA $21,650.00 EA $6,800.00 EA $6,800.00 $21,650.00 $6,800.00 $6,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page12 of 20 . . TE6779- Harris Proprietary 8,12,2013 3 HARRIS CORP - WIRELESS PRODUCTS GROUP PO. BOX 9800, MIS MELBOURNE. FL 32902?9800 PH: 800-358-5297. FAX: BillTo: Ship To: Oakland Police Department Oakland Police Department Jason Saunders Jason Saunders JSaunders@oaklandnet.com JSaunders@oaklandnet.com 455 7th Street 455 7th Street Oakland CA 9460? Oakland CA 94607 DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENTAND THEINFORMATION IT CONTAINS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW [18 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS HARRIS TRADE SECRET AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. THIS DOCUMENTMAY CONTAIN TECHNICAL DATA ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS CHAPTER 1. SUBCHAPTER M. PARTS 123-130) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. EXPORT ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS 15 CFR PARTS T30-T74. DOCUMENT AND THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS MAY NOT BE EXPORTED OB SHARED WITH A FOREIGN NATIONAL WITHOUTA VALID EXPORT AUTHORIZATION. BEFORE MAKING OR PERMITTING ANY DISCLOSURE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR THE INFORMATION IT CONTAINS. WHETHER IN FULL OR IN PART. HARRIS SHALL BE GIVEN TIMELY NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE SUCH DBCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. OAKLAND PD wPes BEST WAY Net 30 ore/0000 5.263 driver and rabbit vehicles plus driver for ?eld mission training (if applicable) Remit To: - 256 200.00 Electronic Funds TransferfEFD: GCSD Mai! Deposits: GCSD OvernightDeir?venes: . - - .00 Harris Corporation. (3030 Harris GCSD Harris GCSD - LB 6?59 - 1 834,00 Clilbank Delaware P.O. Box 7247 LB 6759 CIO Citibank Delaware Lockbox Operations . 00 Philadelphia. PA Philadelphia, PA 19170-6?59 1615 Brett Read - Account No: 3052318? New Castle. DE 19720 - _00 ABA Rig No: 021000089 Phone number: 302-323-3600 $278 034 00 Please reference the invoice number with your payment. Harris Tax 34~0276860 Joshi, Holly J. From: McCreery, Susan Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:11 AM To: Saunders, Jason Seiler, Leslie Ann Cc: Anderson, Gary (ganderOS); Cool, Debra Subject: RE: Attached is Harris quotation 2932 for StingRay Training Jason: I'm very sorry that you were quoted Melbourne prices for West Coast training. I could very well have been my fault that I didn't catch it. We were transitioning responsibilities around that time but that's no excuse. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. Susan From: Saunders, Jason F. Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 12:53 PM To: McCreery, Susan; Seiler, Leslie Ann Cc: Anderson, Gary (gander03); Cool, Debra Subject: RE: Attached is Harris quotation 2932 for StingRay Training Ok well that makes it much more difficult. I had asked for the west coast training to begin with. Wow no i have to go back to square one. Ofc. Jason Saunders Intel sent from me cell phone Susan" wrote: Jason: Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page13 of 20 The original quote we sent you (attached) is for Melbourne, Florida training at $4,000 at class. If we held the training at your facility the cost would increase to $9,000 per class. Please let me know if you need a formal quote for West Coast training and I'll be happy to submit. Susan Message-"? From: Saunders, Jason F. Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 10:31 AM To: McCreery, Susan; Seiler, Leslie Ann Cc: Anderson, Gary (gander03); Cool, Debra Subject: RE: Attached is Harris quotation 2932 for StingRay Training lm hoping that having opd come to you would be cheaper for the actual! training. I can spend the money on travel from a different source. If the "training" cost is less than i may be able to get it approved. If the cost is the same than we will just have to wait and do it here later. Thanks Ofc. Jason Saunders CID lntel sent from me cell phone "McCreery, Susan? wrote: Gary/ Leslie Debbie: Since Jason already has a quote for training, I?m assuming he is looking for the cost of hotels, meals, rental car, etc. Let me get some solid information from this later this morning and Hi advise just what he?s looking for. - Susan From: Saunders, Jason F. Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:49 PM To: Seiler, Leslie Ann Cc: McCreery, Susan; Anderson, Gary (gander03); Cool, Debra Subject: RE: Attached is Harris quotation 2932 for StingRay Training Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page14 of 20 Gary, Leslie, Opd has a little bit of money for some training and we really need to get some officers trained on stingray 2. I have the quote for training here in Cal, but was wanting to know how much it would be to come to you for training. If you could quickly pull some type of quote for say 4 students to get trained at your place or where ever you have the next training session set up. I have to do a cost analysis of both scenarios. Thanks Jason Saunders Oakland Police 510?23 8-3728-desk 510?"cell From: Seller, Leslie Ann [mailtozlseile01@harris.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 7:01 AM To: Saunders, Jason F. Cc: Susan; Anderson, Gary (gander03); Cool, Debra Subject: Attached is Harris quotation 2932 for StingRay Training Jason Attached is Harris Quotation 2932 along with our Ts&Cs. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. .. Regards, Leslie Ann Seiler Wireless Solutions From: "Saunders, Jason Date: March 25, 2011 3:18:33 AM To: Subject: Oakland Police Stingray training Gary per our conversation please sent me some loose info on what training you guys can do for us. This is my personnel email. You can reply to' my city email which is Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page15 of 20 Jason Attached is Harris Quotation 2932 aiong with Our Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Regards, Leslie Ann Seiler Wireless Solutions From: "Saunders, Jason Date: March 25, 2011 3:18:33 AM To: Subject: Oakland Police Stingray training Gary per our conversation please sent me some loose info on what training you guys can do for us. This is my personnel email. You can reply to my city email which is J8aunders@oaklandnet.com. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page16 of 20 Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Pagel? of 20 Figueroa, Paul From: Saunders, Jason F. Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:28 AM To: Alexander, Blair Subject: FW: Harris Quotation 4448 Attachments: WPG Terms Addendum 02-28-11.pdf Sir, Here is the complete quote to include training on the new hardware, which is absolutely needed. From: Seiler, Leslie Ann Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:23 AM To: Saunders, Jason F. Cc: Curry, Brian; Davis, Lisa (ldavisZQ); McCreery, Susan; Vinson, Lin; Zelazny, Subject: Harris Quotation 4448 Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Regards, lie A .eil ng Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page18 of 20 FE ueroa, Paul Subject: FW: HailStorm Coordination Meeting Location: 1225 Fallon St, 2nd Floor Start: Fri 10:00 AM End: Fri 8/16/2013 11:00 AM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Alexander, Blair Chiefs we are meeting with ALCO DA Inspectors and Fremont PD to explore options for pooling fiscal resources to upgrade our Triggerfish/Stingray system. ALCO has about to offer to the partnership. As you can see from the quote, this is a S300K project. Can your provide guidance as to what monies OPD might commit "to this project? Obviously, this arrangement will require a MOU as well. Appointment??~?? From: Alexander, Blair Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:32 PM To: Alexander, Blair; Chew, Craig, DA Allison, Darren; Saunders, Jason F. Subject: HaiIStorm Coordination Meeting When: Friday, August 16, 2013 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US Canada). Where: 1225 Fallon St, 2nd Floor Ha rri?s Quotation Ali-$8 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Pagel9 of 20 HAILSTORM UPGRADE PROJECT Task obtain a state-of?the-art cell phone tracking system. Purpose to support criminal investigations and prosecutions in Alameda County. Method ACDA, in partnership with OPD and FPD, seeks to upgrade outdated Stringray system using grant funding from UASI and SHSP, as well as monetary contributions from OPD and ACDA. Endstate The procurement and ?elding of a new Hailstorm system that can be used to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions. The system will be a regional asset under the direct control of ACDA, OPD, and FPD. Cost of Project - $460,000 Funding Sources: 0 Trade-in of old Stingray system ($170,000) 0 SHGP Grant Funding already obtained by FPD ($100,000) 0 Van to transport Hailstorm from ACDA ($35,000) I OPD funding verbal commitment from Chief Whent in Aug 13 ($50,000) 0 UASI funding ACDA submitting the proposal in Nov 13 Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-5 Filed02/06/15 Page20 of 20 Fi ueroa, Paul From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Alexander, Blair, DA Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:33 AM Figueroa, Paul - Chew, Craig, DA Hailstorm Summary HAILSTORM UPGRADE Chief as requested, see attached. Blair Alexander Inspector Alameda County District Attorney?s Office Document78?6 Filed02/06/15 Pagel of3 EXHIBIT Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-6 Filed02/06/15 Page2 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Marshals Service REPORT OF INVESTIGATION l.FID:CASE: - 22-0893-S Page 1 of2 2. DATE OF REPORT: 01/30/2013 3. REPORTED BY: BARA,MONCIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 AT: 079 4. SUBJECT NAME: KINCAID,DEANTE 5. MERGED Fills: 6. TYPE OF REPORT: []REPORT OF ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTION [ ] COLLATERAL LEAD []WITNESS INTERVIEW []OTHER []ARREST []INTELLIGENCE UPDATE [ ] MEMORANDUM TO FILE Response ID: 114277 Request Sent To: FERNANDEZ,ARTHUR Anest Made: Y Hours: 8 ~art is in response to the collateral lead received on January 24,2013 for KINCAID, DEANTE FID# - - from the U.S. Marshals Service, Gulf Coast Violent Offenders Fugitive Task Force (GCVOFTF) Houston Division and the Pacific Southwest Regional Fugitive Task Force (PSRFTF). KINCAID was wanted on two wanants for Parole Violation from California, based on his original offense of Robbery and Attempt Homicide on an Oakland Police Officer in California on 1/21/13. On 1/24/13 DUSM Bara received pertinent information from DUSM Wechsler that KINCAID was due to arrive at the Hobby Airport in Houston, Texas on a Southwest Airlines flight and would be switching flights in Houston. DUSM Bara was advised by DUSM Wechsler and intelligence received by the PSRFTF that KINCAID and needed to be detained and identified. DUSM Bara anived at the airport and made contact with TSA, the Houston Police Department (HPD), Airport ·Operations and Southwest Airlines. DUSM Bara and the local authorities proceeded to the assigned gate and detained dditional information received from California confirmed that KINCAID was indeed the wanted fugitive. KINCAID was taken into custody without incident, transported and booked into the Houston Police De artment. sfq~;\~Uffi)~f3~~f fl~~1ported KINCAID from HP~1 ~~m~!~t~~Wgmis c was processed, seen by a magistrate judge and booked into the Ranis County Jail. dn Jbt~~~mE'J?lhNcAID HEADQUARTERS OTHER~--------- MONCIES BARA DeputyUSM 9. APPROVED (Name dnd Title) 10. DATE 02/01/2013 1:32PM EST GEORGE HEPHNER Warrant Supervisor UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE THIS REPORT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. NEITHER IT NOR ITS CONTENT MAY BE DISSEMINATED OUTSIDE THE AGENCY TO WHICH LOANED. REPORTS-DOCUMENTS-000291 06/04/2013 2:53PM EDT Case4:13-cr-00818-PJH Document78-6 Filed02/06/15 Page3 of 3 U.S. Department of Justice United States Marshals Service REPORT OF INVESTIGATION ~:~~ l3l 1.0122-0893-S Page 2 of2 2. DATE OF REPORT: 01/3012013 ------------...,-------------1 3. REPORTED BY: BARA,MONCIES AT: 079 4. SUBJECT NAME: KINCAID,DEANTE 5. MERGED Fills: Case closed .... UMTED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE THIS REPORT IS THE PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. NEITHER IT NOR ITS CONTENT MAY BE DISSEMINATED OUTSIDE THE AGENCY TO WHICH LOANED. REPORTS-DOCUMENTS-000292 06/04/2013 2:53 PM EDT 455