FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT On Thursday, October 6, 2011, at approximately 1:57 p.m.

, former Miami Police Chief Miguel Exposito and one of his former Assistant Chiefs, Jose Seiglie, came to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Miami Regional Operations Center (MROC), where Assistant Chief Seiglie rendered a sworn, digitally recorded statement in the presence of Chief Exposito and Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas. Assistant Chief Seiglie alleged that a Grand Theft case investigated by the Miami Police Departments Criminal Investigations Division (CID), while he was in charge of the office as Chief of CID, was covered up due to the subjects political connection with the City Attorneys Office. Assistant Chief Seiglie explained that he separated as the CID Chief on September 15, 2011, when he honorably retired from the City of Miami Police Department. Approximately two to three months prior to his retirement, he was on the fifth floor of Police Headquarters, in the Detective Squad area, when he noticed the Police Legal Advisor (PLA), the CID Major, and one of his burglary detectives huddled near the latters work station. This piqued his curiosity, as it was unusual for the PLA to be in the Detective Squad area speaking with Assistant Chief Seiglies personnel. Mr. George Wysong, the PLA, and Major George Martin were speaking with Detective Cassandra Reese, a Detective in the Burglary Unit. Assistant Chief Seiglie walked over to inquire as to the nature of the meeting. Major Martin explained that Detective Reese was investigating the theft of a ring setting allegedly taken by an attorney employed with the Florida Bar. He learned that the theft had occurred while the subject was at a jewelry store with his fiance, an Assistant City Attorney. Assistant Chief Seiglie was told that the reported value of the purloined setting was $5000. According to Assistant Chief Seiglie, the business owner had summoned the police on the date of the incident and produced closed circuit video footage of the subject actually concealing and stealing the setting from his jewelry counter. The subject was seen taking the setting, as well as a ring that he and his fiance had already purchased but were trying to exchange. Assistant Chief Seiglie had occasion to view the original video footage, which according to the witness was somewhat grainy. You could make out the subject taking something off the jewelry counter and concealing it in a bag nearby. He and the Major agreed that they would ask the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) to enhance the video for them. They met with a gentleman from the USSS by the name of Villanueva and another Hialeah Police Detective, detached to the USSS, who came by Miami PD to collect the video. After the two individuals were briefed on the case, they agreed to enhance the video. This enhanced video is scientifically admissible by the Courts as evidence, according to the Assistant Chief. When he viewed the enhanced video, he could discern the theft clearly. According to Assistant Chief Seiglie, you could see the

Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:1 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:10/06/2011 Activity End Date:10/06/2011 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Sworn, digitally recorded statement of former Miami PD Assistant Chief Jose Seiglie THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 1 subject taking one item from the display, then another item, and concealing them both in a handbag that was lying on a chair behind him. In effect, the subject was taking back the ring they had already purchased and were seeking to exchange and the setting that was subsequently reported stolen. The other family members who were present at the jewelry store, his fiance, the subjects future in-laws, were scattered around the salon, but they were not in a position to see the theft take place. The viewer can actually see them on the video standing around, either distracted or with their backs to the subject when he conceals the items. The unenhanced video had been taken to the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office (SAO), and an Assistant State Attorney (ASA) had indicated to the Detective that she could get a warrant for the subjects arrest, based on the existing evidence. The case was subsequently reassigned to another ASA who insisted on interviewing the responding uniform officer, etc., before making a filing decision. When the enhanced video came back, Detective Reese provided the new ASA with a copy of the newly enhanced evidence, and three different ASAs who reportedly viewed the video all allegedly agreed that the subject had indeed stolen the setting. As of September 15th, when Assistant Chief Seiglie retired, no arrest warrant had yet been issued for the subject in this case. Assistant Chief Seiglie became aware of a meeting that had been set up between Deputy Chief ASA Jose Arrojo, the defense attorney hired by the subject of the theft, and the Miami PLA, Mr. Wysong. The Assistant Chief became aware of the meeting when a Burglary Lieutenant, later identified as David Ramras, was invited to attend. Assistant Chief Seiglie could not explain Mr. Wysongs role in the matter, as no one from the Police Department had asked him to intervene for any reason. However, he expressly emailed the defense attorney in the case, informing him that no one from Miami CID would be attending the meeting. He also informed Lieutenant Ramras not to attend, and so informed Mr. Wysong of his decision. Assistant Chief Seiglie would come to learn that City Attorney Julie Bru had asked Mr. Wysong to go to the police and inquire about the investigation into the alleged theft by the fiance of one of Ms. Brus Assistant City Attorneys. Apparently Ms. Brus associate, the fiance, was totally distraught over the incident involving her intended. Mr. Wysong, according to the Assistant Chief, works under the City Attorneys Office and reports to Ms. Bru. Assistant Chief Seiglie described PLA Wysongs involvement in this matter as highly irregular. Assistant Chief Seiglie identified Mr. Thomas Kroeger, a South Beach resident and and attorney working with The Florida Bar, as the subject of the theft. According to Assistant Chief Seiglie, Mr. Kroeger reportedly lives at 741 15th Street, Apartment #14, Miami Beach, FL, Phone 319-325-1771. The Miami Police case number generated in connection with his alleged theft of the setting is 100806-235115. The victim and reporter of the theft was Mr. Alejandro Perez, owner of Nemaro Jewelers in the Seybold Building at 36 Northeast 1st Street, Miami. Based on the last conversation he had with Detective Reese, Assistant Chief Seiglie could not reasonably explain why Mr. Kroeger had not yet been arrested. He was unaware of any exculpatory evidence that would tend to clear Mr. Kroeger in the case. The statement was terminated at 2:14 p.m. Assistant Chief Seiglies sworn, digitally recorded statement will be retained as a related item to this IR.

Page 2

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT On Thursday, October 6, 2011, at approximately 1:57 p.m., former Miami Police Chief Miguel Exposito and one of his former Assistant Chiefs, Jose Seiglie, came to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Miami Regional Operations Center (MROC), where Assistant Chief Seiglie rendered a sworn, digitally recorded statement in the presence of Chief Exposito and Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas. Mr. Seiglie alleged that a Grand Theft case investigated by the Miami Police Departments Criminal Investigations Division (CID), while he was in charge of the office as Chief of CID, was covered up due to the subjects political connection to the City Attorneys Office. On Thursday, October 20, 2011, Assistant Special Agent In Charge (ASAC) Michael DAmbrosia, after having spoken with Jose Arrojo, the Chief Deputy Assistant State Attorney (ASA) at the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office (SAO), sent SA Saladrigas the following email: ASA Arrojo just called me and stated that he was familiar with the case and that based on his knowledge of the case that charges would not be filed. He welcomed our look at it and suggested we reach out to the city to see the file. You will follow up with the city and determine any issues they have had and see the file as he has recommended. He did not recall who the original ASA was. In following up on Assistant Chief Seiglies allegations and pursuant to ASA Arrojos recommendation, SA Saladrigas arranged a meeting with officials at the City of Miami Police Departments Criminal Investigations Division (CID). Contact was made with CID Major (Acting Chief) George Martin, who scheduled a meeting between SA Saladrigas, Miami Police Commander Jose Rodriguez, Burglary Unit Lieutenant David Ramras and Detective Cassandra Reese. On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, at approximately 3 p.m., SA Saladrigas met with the Miami police officials at their headquarters building at 400 Northwest 2nd Avenue. Lieutenant Ramras and Detective Reese explained that the case was assigned to the latter after uniform officers were summoned to Nemaro Jewelers in the Sebold Building, by one of the proprietors, Mr. Alejandro Alex Perez. Mr. Perez reported that Mr. Thomas Kroeger and his fiance, Ms. Tarin Smithline, along with Ms. Smithlines parents, Alan and Marie, had visited his store on two occasions to arrange for the repair of a ring that they had purchased there previously. On the second visit, which took place on August 6, 2010, the family began to compare and examine other pieces available for purchase inside the store. At one point, Mr. Perez and Ms. Tarin Smithline moved away from a display on the counter, which contained the faulty ring that was to be repaired and another ring setting. The latter was a piece available for purchase valued at $2500.00. When Mr. Perez Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:2 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:10/20/2011 Activity End Date:10/25/2011 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Follow-up meeting with City of Miami Police officials. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 2 and Ms. Smithline returned to the display tray, Mr. Perez noted that the setting was missing. Initially, Mr. Perez indicated to the Smithline family and Mr. Kroeger that the piece may have fallen to the floor or had somehow been misplaced. However when Mr. Perez reviewed the closed circuit video footage inside the store, he noted that Mr. Kroeger had picked up the missing setting and had placed it inside one of two bags that had just been handed to him previously by Marie Smithline as she walked up behind him. Mr. Perez summoned police who took a report, naming Mr. Kroeger as a suspect, but they did not take him into custody or search the bag in which the purloined setting had been secreted. Mr. Kroeger and the Smithline family were allowed to leave the premises without further incident. The reporting officer, according to Detective Reese, would later concede that he and his partner were intimidated by the suspect and his fiance, who were both attorneys and threatened to sue them if they arrested Mr. Kroeger. The officers reportedly checked with their sergeant, and he cleared the officers to write their report and defer any arrest until an investigation could be completed. Detective Reese would come to learn that a Coral Gables-based attorney, Mr. Ray Taseff, would later inform Mr. Perez and Nemaro Jeweler, via Certified U.S. Mail, that Mr. Kroeger and the Smithline family would be pursuing redress in the courts as a result of Nemaro Jewelers negligence and misconduct of [its] employees[after his] clients were unlawfully detained and subjected to a violation of their civil rights During the ensuing months immediately after the incident, Detective Reese attempted to arrange the surrender of the suspect at Miami Police headquarters through his attorney, Mr. Taseff. Each time, they would offer some excuse as to why they could not come in. Finally, Detective Reese, after consulting with her supervisors, met with an ASA at the SAO and shared the evidence in the case with same. The ASA agreed that there was probable cause to arrest the suspect, Mr. Kroeger, based on the evidence presented. In the meantime, Mr. George Wysong became involved on behalf of the City Attorneys office. It was unclear to any of the police officials what, if anything, were his motives for intervening. However, at that point, it was agreed that the video tape of the incident would be sent to the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) for enhancement. In the meantime, the case was re-assigned to another ASA who requested to interview the responding uniform officers to determine why they had not decided to effect a probable cause arrest at the time the incident was reported. Simultaneously, a meeting was arranged between Mr. Taseff, Mr. Wysong, and ASA Arrojo to discuss the matter further. While it was true that Assistant Chief Jose Seiglie had prohibited anyone from Miami PD from attending the actual meeting, Lieutenant Ramras and Detective Reese did meet with ASA Arrojo prior to the scheduled meeting. In the pre-meeting, the police officials allowed ASA Arrojo to view the enhanced video footage numerous times. In several instances, ASA Arrojo would invite other ASAs into the office to view the footage. In each instance, the ASAs would confirm that there was probable cause to arrest and each vowed that they could handle the prosecution. Even ASA Arrojo concurred. The consensus was that with both the video and the victims testimony, they could prosecute the subject for Grand Theft. The Miami police officials stepped out while the attorneys conducted their meeting in private, and when the meeting concluded, according to Lieutenant Ramras, ASA Arrojo emerged somewhat subdued not nearly as enthusiastic about filing the charges as before. They left without explanation or any decision having been made, but Lieutenant Ramras insisted that whatever decision was ultimately reached, Miami PD wanted either a warrant or a close-out memo. To date, no disposition has been reached or reported to the Miami Police Department in the case. When questioned, Detective Reese conceded that she has had no contact with the Page 2

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 2 victim, Mr. Perez, in months. SA Saladrigas counseled Detective Reese to reach out to the victim as soon as practicable to ensure that Mr. Taseff and his clients had not negotiated some ancillary settlement in the matter with Mr. Perez and Nemaro Jewelers, which would now negate the victims cooperation rendering the prosecution effort mute. Detective Reese and Lieutenant Ramras agreed to follow-up. The meeting was finalized with the agreement that if the victim still favored prosecution and no collateral agreement had been proposed or ratified, then Detective Reese and Lieutenant Ramras would render sworn statements and turn over copies of all evidence in the case to FDLE on Wednesday, November 2, 2011. Additionally, it was pointed out to Lieutenant Ramras that FDLE would ultimately, if prosecution was still a viable option, ask to take statements from the responding officers in the original incident. In the meeting, it was clarified that FDLE was only investigating the allegation of a cover-up and not the substantive charge of Grand Theft against Mr. Kroeger. The latter remained a City of Miami police case and would be pursued, if appropriate, by Detective Reese. Copies of a draft Statement of Facts authored by Detective Reese in the theft case and the letter from Mr. Taseff, dated August 16, 2010, threatening to sue Nemaro Jewelers, will be retained as related items to this IR.

Page 3

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT This report is predicated on the interview of Detective Cassandra Reese, City of Miami Police Department, assigned to the Burglary Unit. Detective Reese is the lead investigator into the alleged theft of jewelry by suspect Thomas Kroeger, a staff attorney with The Florida Bar. A complaint filed by retired Miami PD Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Chief Jose Seiglie alleges that the matter has been covered up by members of the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office (SAO) in collusion with the City Attorneys Office, where Mr. Kroegers wife is employed as an Assistant City Attorney. Detective Reese rendered a sworn, digitally recorded statement on November 2, 2011, at 2:31 p.m., at the Miami Police Headquarters, 400 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL. Detective Reese explained that she was assigned to the Burglary Unit, which is charged with investigating burglaries, thefts, and vandalism cases. Detective Reese recalled that her supervisor, in or about August of 2010, assigned her to conduct an investigation into the alleged theft of a piece of jewelry missing from a jewelry retailer at the Seybold Building. Detective Reese was not assigned the case until after the fact, when a copy of the original police report arrived at her office. She never responded to the original scene, while the suspect and witnesses were on the scene. Detective Reese initially contacted the victim, Alejandro Alex Perez, the President and owner of Nemaro Jewelers at 34 Northeast 1st Street, in the Seybold Building, in downtown Miami. She took a statement from Mr. Perez regarding the events leading up to and surrounding the theft. Mr. Perez advised that he had received customers who had been referred to him by the president of his homeowners association. These customers had recently purchased a ring with which they had experienced certain problems: A stone kept falling off the setting or something to that effect. They had come to exchange the piece for something of equal value. The customers arrived at the store with the flawed ring; they were Tarin Smithline and her fiance at the time, Mr. Kroeger, and her parents, Alan and Marie Smithline. While in the store, Mr. Perez began to show the party other rings that he had on display. Mr. Perez pulled out a tray from his display, which contained three pieces. Ms. Tarin Smithline and Mr. Perez each took one ring to compare with others in the store, and the flawed ring that they looked to return and the third piece, which was just a setting, were left on the tray on top of the display counter. Detective Reese would learn that Mr. Kroeger is a staff attorney with The Florida Bar in Miami, and Ms. Tarin Smithline is an Assistant City Attorney at the City of Miami. While Mr. Perez and Ms. Tarin Smithline were walking around comparing their items with other pieces throughout the store, Detective Reese would learn that Mr. Kroeger remained near the tray on the display counter. He, at one point, picked up the setting and slipped it into one of two handbags that had just been handed to him by his soon-to-be mother-in-law. He then picked up the second Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:3 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:11/02/2011 Activity End Date:11/02/2011 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Sworn statement of Detective Cassandra Reese THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 3 item, presumably the ring they were to return, and examined it, then placed it back on the tray. Detective Reese would learn this from Mr. Perezs statement based on a closed circuit video, which had captured the entire event on camera and which she would impound as evidence. Mr. Perez initially confronted the discovery of the missing ring by announcing that the piece must have fallen to the floor and allegedly solicited the aid of Mr. Kroeger and the Smithlines in searching for it. However, the search proved fruitless. At that point, his customers began to show signs of hostility toward Mr. Perez, insinuating that he was practically accusing them. Mr. Perez did not wish to confront the possibility because the party had been referred to him by a sitting judge, who also happens to be the president of Mr. Perezs homeowners association. However, at one point, Mr. Perez went to the back of the store and reviewed the video captured through his closed circuit camera system; he observed the theft by Mr. Kroeger. Mr. Perez summoned their internal security to report the theft. Prior to that, however, Mr. Kroeger himself had apparently contacted the Miami Police Department and had requested that they respond, alleging that Mr. Perez was not allowing them to leave the store. In effect, Mr. Kroeger was accusing Mr. Perez of False Imprisonment. The Miami police officers wrote a theft report, listing Mr. Kroeger as a suspect, but they did not write the report on the alleged False Imprisonment. Detective Reese noted that these events occurred after 5 p.m. on the date in question, and it was store policy to lock the doors at that time every day; moreover, it is common lawful practice for retailers to detain suspected shoplifters with probable cause. The officers executed an Offense-Incident Report titled Retail Theft, according to Detective Reese. Mr. Kroeger was listed as the suspect in the theft of a setting with some small stones valued at approximately $2500. If charged, therefore, he would be arrested on Grand Theft charges. Lamentably, according to Detective Reese, the responding police officers never searched the handbag where Mr. Kroeger was seen secreting the ring. The suspect, at one time, began to remove items of clothing, ending up in his undergarments. Mrs. Marie Smithline also emptied the contents of her handbag, but Ms. Tarin Smithlines handbag was never examined by anyone. When Detective Reese asked why they had not searched the suspect and their handbags, one officer conceded that they had been somewhat intimidated by the fact that the Smithlines and Mr. Kroeger were throwing up their jobs in a threatening manner, implying that they would sue if the officers took any action. Detective Reese confirmed that normally the suspect would have been arrested on the scene in an incident like the instant case; however, the officers were sufficiently concerned to defer to the investigator before making a decision to arrest. A supervisor on the scene had reportedly allowed that in this case. Detective Reese, when she examined the video, felt that there had been sufficient probable cause to arrest Mr. Kroeger in connection with the theft of the ring. Detective Reese acknowledged that the quality of the video was alright. However, at one point, supervisors in her chain of command decided to send the video to the United States Secret Service (USSS) to have the evidence enhanced. A Hialeah police detective, detached to the USSS, had apparently completed the forensic enhancement. Detective Reese also viewed the enhanced video, which focuses on the suspects hand as he secrets the ring in his fiances purse. Ultimately, Detective Reese met with an Assistant State Attorney (ASA) who became known to her as Alicia Priovolos, who was assigned, at the time, to the Racketeering and Organized Crime Unit of the SAO. Detective Reese allowed ASA Priovolos to review the evidence. According to the ASA, the victims testimony coupled with the video footage, gave Detective Reese sufficient grounds to go out and arrest Mr. Kroeger on probable cause. Based on that meeting with ASA Proviolos, Detective Reese completed a probable cause affidavit for the Page 2

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 3 arrest of Thomas Kroeger and filed it with the Miami Police Departments Felony Apprehension Team. When the Team went to meet with Mr. Kroeger, the suspect gave the officers the name and contact information for his attorney. The information was then handed over to Detective Reese for follow-up. Detective Reese contacted Attorney Ray Taseff, who was representing Mr. Kroeger and the Smithlines in their civil rights claim(s) against Nemaro Jewelers and Mr. Perez. Detective Reese attempted to convince Mr. Taseff to surrender his client at the Miami Police Headquarters to be charged with the Grand Theft. Mr. Taseff tried to question Detective Reese over the phone; however, she deferred all questions until such time as they could meet in person, so she could verify his identity and the bona fides of his claims of representation for Thomas Kroeger. For several reasons, over time, the subject never surrendered. In the interim, now ten months after the incident, Mr. George Wysong, the Miamis Police Legal Advisor (PLA), came into CID to inquire of Detective Reese about the Kroeger case. Mr. Wysong works for the City Attorneys Office, where Ms. Tarin Smithline is also employed. Detective Reese confirmed that it was unusual for the PLA to come in and ask about one of their cases. Mr. Wysong wanted to see the video for himself and examine the evidence in the case. Detective Reese did not recall Mr. Wysong ever expressly saying why he had felt need to become involved in this particular matter. She did recall, however, that other supervisors in her office came to her when they observed the PLA at her workstation. Major George Martin, Lieutenant David Ramras, and ultimately CID Chief Jose Seiglie came to inquire as to the nature of Mr. Wysongs visit. After everyone was briefed on the facts of the Kroeger case, Chief Seiglie allegedly asked Mr. Wysong for his legal opinion on the evidence against the suspect. Mr. Wysong claimed that he was not comfortable giving [his opinion]. With that, Chief Seiglie ordered Detective Reese to seek an arrest warrant in the case, as Mr. Wysongs involvement and vacillation on the legal opinion, made the Chief uncomfortable moving forward on probable cause. When Detective Reese emailed ASA Priovolos, the ASA advised her that since both the suspect and his now-wife were government employees, the case would have to be transferred to the Public Corruption Unit. Detective Reese was assigned to ASA Sandra Baptiste [phonetic]. Detective Reese met with and briefed the ASA on the evidence. At that time, they had not yet enhanced the video, so she was only shown the original footage. At the culmination of their meeting, ASA Baptiste was unconvinced and asked to interview the responding officers who had been at the scene and had executed the original report. She wanted to confirm that what the suspect was seen secreting in the handbag could be proven as the stolen ring. ASA Baptiste indicated that she would ultimately give Detective Reese her warrant; however, she wanted to conduct her own investigation before doing so. Detective Reese attended several meetings with ASA Baptiste where two officers documented at the scene gave statements to ASA Baptiste. ASA Baptiste was to take statements from one other officer and the supervisor, but that never happened. At one point, after the video was enhanced sometime after July 13, 2011, possibly in or about September 2011, ASA Jose Arrojo, the Deputy Chief of the SAO, contacted Detective Reese and declared that he wished to review the evidence in the Kroeger case, so he could render a final filing decision in the matter. Detective Reese and Lieutenant Ramras met with ASA Arrojo to afford him an opportunity to review the evidence. He witnessed the video evidence and said he didnt understand what the problem was, why an arrest could not have been made that day. It was enough for him. ASA Arrojo even called in three other ASAs into his office to view the video, and all three agreed that you could see the suspect taking the item and secreting it in the handbag. The unanimous consensus, according to Detective Reese, was that the suspect should be arrested. Page 3

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 3

Immediately following their meeting with ASA Arrojo, Mr. Wysong and Mr. Taseff arrived at the SAO to meet with ASA Arrojo. Detective Reese and Lieutenant Ramras stepped out during this second meeting between the attorneys. When the attorneys emerged from the meeting, Lieutenant Ramras told Detective Reese to reach out to the victim, Mr. Perez, so that ASA Arrojo could speak with him. Detective Reese believed it had to do more with the civil claims by Mr. Taseff and his clients than the criminal case. Detective Reese produced a letter that was provided to her by Mr. Perez, which the victim had received from Ray Taseff, alerting Mr. Perez that they would be seeking redress in the courts for his unlawful detention of the Smithlines and Mr. Kroeger. Detective Reese confirmed that she had lost contact with Mr. Perez for a protracted period following the initial phase of her investigation. After a meeting with SA Saladrigas the previous week, on advice from SA Saladrigas, she had re-contacted Mr. Perez to ensure that no collateral agreements or non-prosecution form had been signed by the victim at the behest of Ray Taseff or others. During their meeting, Mr. Perez professed that he still wanted to prosecute; he had not been contacted by anyone at the SAO; and he had not signed any agreements with Mr. Taseff accepting anything or waiving his desire to prosecute. According to Detective Reese, ASA Priovolos had confirmed some civil claim that had reportedly been filed in court by Mr. Taseff against Nemaro Jewelers or Mr. Perez or both. She did not know the details of the civil case. Mr. Perez had been scheduled for deposition several times, but each time it has been postponed. Detective Reese could not explain why, to this date, she had not been cleared to finally arrest Mr. Kroeger or why a warrant or a close-out memorandum had not been issued by the SAO in the case. Detective Reeses statement was terminated at 3:06 p.m. A copy of her digitally recorded sworn statement will be retained as a related item to this IR. Detective Reese also turned over a digital copy of the closed circuit video (enhance by USSS) captured by Nemaro Jewelers during the theft. That evidence will also be retained as a related item to this IR.

Page 4

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT This report is predicated on the interview of Lieutenant David Ramras, a supervisor at the City of Miami Police Departments Burglary Unit. Lieutenant Ramras supervises Detective Cassandra Reese, who is the lead investigator into the alleged theft of jewelry by suspect Thomas Kroeger, a staff attorney with The Florida Bar. A complaint filed by retired Miami PD Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Chief Jose Seiglie alleges that the matter has been covered up by members of the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office (SAO) in collusion with the City Attorneys Office, where Mr. Kroegers wife is employed as an Assistant City Attorney. On November 2, 2011, at approximately 3:15 p.m., Lieutenant Ramras rendered a sworn, digitally recorded statement at Miami Police Headquarters, 400 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL, in the presence of Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Miami Regional Operations Center (MROC). Lieutenant Ramras confirmed that he is a supervisor in Miamis Burglary Unit. In that capacity, he had occasion to become involved in a case being investigated by one of his subordinates, Detective Reese, involving the theft of jewelry from a Miami-based jewelry retailer. Lieutenant Ramras recalled walking by Detective Reeses work station and noting that several people were viewing a video tape of a male, his alleged fiance, and the parents of one of the aforementioned individuals, wherein it appeared that the male suspect palmed a ring from the display counter and concealed it in a nearby handbag. They watched the video several times, and it appeared to Lieutenant Ramras that the male subject clearly was stealing the item in question. At one point, Major George Martin and CID Chief Seiglie came up, and Lieutenant Ramras encouraged them to view the video. Lieutenant Ramras remembered that the consensus of the group after viewing the video was that the suspect stole the ring. Lieutenant Ramras also learned the victim, the owner of Nemaro Jewelers, confirmed to the reporting officers that he was missing the item from the display tray. While Lieutenant Ramras was uncertain of the value of the stolen piece, he did know that it was of sufficient value to constitute grand theft by the perpetrator. At some point, Lieutenant Ramras could not recall when, the Miami Police Legal Advisor (PLA), George Wysong, took an interest in the case. From PLA Wysong, Lieutenant Ramras would learn that the fiance of the suspect in this case was an Assistant City Attorney. The Lieutenant would also learn that the actual suspect was a staff attorney with The Florida Bar in Miami. PLA Wysong had apparently received a call from the City Attorneys Office asking him to inquire as to the nature of the Citys investigation. To Lieutenant Ramras knowledge, PLA Wysong never took any overt steps to influence or alter the course of their criminal case. After PLA Wysong made known his interest in the case, Chief Seiglie ordered the video footage Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:4 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:11/02/2011 Activity End Date:11/02/2011 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Sworn Statement of Miami Police Lieutenant David Ramras THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 4 enhanced by the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). The video was turned over to the USSS and enhanced from its original state. After the enhancement, Lieutenant Ramras again viewed the video and was convinced that the footage clearly displayed the suspect, identified as Thomas Kroeger, removing and concealing a piece from a display tray at the jewelry store. Detective Reese attempted, without success, to arrange the surrender of Mr. Kroeger overtime; at one point, it was decided to seek a warrant for Mr. Kroegers arrest. Lieutenant Ramras was aware that Detective Reese met with more than one Assistant State Attorney (ASA) in her pursuit of a warrant for Mr. Kroeger. He was unaware of any ASA denying the existence of sufficient probable cause to arrest the suspect for grand theft. However, at one point, a meeting was arranged with Deputy Chief ASA Jose Arrojo, so that he could examine the evidence in the case and make a filing decision. Lieutenant Ramras, Detective Reese, and PLA Wysong eventually did meet with ASA Arrojo and allowed him to examine all of their evidence in the Kroeger case, including the original and enhanced video footage. After viewing the footage and examining the evidence numerous times, ASA Arrojo proclaimed that the case looks good to him. He acknowledged that there was sufficient evidence to arrest Mr. Kroeger. During the course of the meeting, ASA Arrojo called in three colleagues, other ASAs, and they all came to the same conclusion: The suspect appeared to have stolen the missing ring. After the aforementioned meeting, ASA Arrojo met with PLA Wysong and another individual who represented the suspect, Attorney Ray Taseff. Lieutenant Ramras and Detective Reese were not present at the second meeting; they stepped out and awaited the results. When ASA Arrojo emerged from the meeting with Messrs. Wysong and Taseff, he appeared somewhat loath to prosecute Mr. Kroeger; his apparent enthusiasm to arrest had waned. Noting ASA Arrojo's vacillation, Lieutenant Ramras reaffirmed the Miami Police Departments position in the matter: They wanted either a warrant to arrest Mr. Kroeger or a close out letter to close out the case without an arrest. Lieutenant Ramras advised that since their August 2011 meeting with ASA Arrojo no other developments have occurred; they have neither received a warrant nor a close out letter. Lieutenant Ramras could not comment on any role that the City Attorney, Julie Bru, might have played in any of these proceedings. He had not been made aware of any direct involvement by Ms. Bru. Lieutenant Ramras, when questioned, confirmed that Detective Reese had personally met with the owner of Nemaro Jewelers, Mr. Alex Perez, since SA Saladrigas visit to Miami PD the week before. As agreed, Detective Reese questioned Mr. Perez as to any contact with the SAO or Mr. Taseffs office during the past several months vis--vis the Kroeger case. Mr. Perez allegedly verified that he has not been contacted by any of the parties; he indicated that nothing has changed; and he is still interested in prosecuting Mr. Kroeger for the theft of his property. Lieutenant Ramras, who is a 27-year veteran of law enforcement, could not think of any reason why Mr. Kroeger had not yet been charged with the theft of the missing ring. His statement was terminated at 3:27 p.m. A copy of Lieutenant Ramras sworn, digitally recorded statement will be retained as a related item to this IR.

Page 2

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT This report is predicated on the acquisition of court documents obtained by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) from a third party source, who acquired same through a public records request filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. And it also reflects phone conversations with an attorney representing the victim of an alleged retail theft, which Miami Police officials allege are being covered up by the Miami City Attorneys Office, due to the fact that the suspect is now married to an Assistant City Attorney. On December 19, 2011, FDLE Special Agents (SA) William V. Saladrigas and Jeffrey Pomerantz met with a confidential source (CS) who wished to remain anonymous. The CS turned over court filings acquired from the Clerks Office in the case of Thomas Kroeger, et al (Plaintiffs) vs. Nemaro Jewelers, Inc., a Florida Corporation (Defendant) under court case number 11-03731CA-8. The lawsuit filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs by Coral Gables Attorney Ray Taseff, alleges that the Plaintiffs were unlawfully detained on or about August 6, 2010, at Nemaro Jewelers in the Miami Seybold Building, where they suffered damages including mental suffering, embarrassment, shame, humiliation, and damage to reputation These allegations stem from an incident that same date, wherein Miami police officers were summoned to the location and executed a police report titled, Retail Theft, naming Plaintiff Thomas Kroeger as the suspect in the theft of a piece of jewelry valued at $2500. On December 20, 2011, SA Saladrigas telephoned Attorney Allan S. Friedman, of the Law Offices of Beth-Ann Tansey, in Hollywood, Florida, who represents Nemaro Jewelers, Inc. in the lawsuit filed by Attorney Ray Taseff. Mr. Friedman confirmed that his law firm represents the Defendant in the civil claim and agreed to meet with SAs Saladrigas and Pomerantz in the future. When asked if the court filings as represented in the Clerk of the Courts, Miami-Dade County, Florida website were accurate, he confirmed that they were up-to-date. He specifically stated that no depositions had been taken in the cause as yet. Mr. Friedman added that he has repeatedly scheduled the Plaintiffs for deposition, but the appointments have been repeatedly cancelled by Mr. Taseff, citing the unresloved criminal allegations against his client, Thomas Kroeger. Mr. Friedman advised that he had obtained a copy of Nemaros closed circuit video, which captures the images of Thomas Kroeger taking an item from the display tray on the jewelry counter and concealing it into a handbag on a chair next to

Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:5 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:12/19/2011 Activity End Date:12/20/2011 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Acquisition of Court Filings and Phone Conversation with Attorney Allan Friedman. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 5 him. He stated that he was going to request that former Miami Police Chief and current forensic consultant Kenneth Harms examine the footage for probative value. He closed with the statement that, in his opinion, the Plaintiffs claims based on the facts as known, are substantially lacking in merit.

Page 2

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT This report is predicated on a meeting between Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Miami Regional Operations Center (MROC) and Assistant State Attorney (ASA) Sandra Miller-Batiste, of the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office (SAO) Eleventh Judicial Circuit, regarding the facts surrounding the SAOs filing decision in the case of Thomas Kroeger, an individual who was investigated by the Miami Police Department after he allegedly stole a $2500 piece of jewelry from a downtown Miami jewelry retailer. Miami Police officials alleged that the Miami City Attorneys Office had exerted undue influence in the matter, as Mr. Kroeger is now married to an Assistant City Attorney. On January 9, 2012, SA Saladrigas met with ASA Miller-Batiste, as she was identified as the ASA in charge of the Kroeger case. Ms. Miller-Batiste conceded that very little had been done by the SAO in this case. She knew that her intermediate supervisor, ASA Deputy Chief Jose Arrojo had met with Miami Police officials, the Miami Police Legal Advisor, and Kroegers attorney, Ray Taseff; however, she did not attend those meetings, and she was unaware of the details and/or decisions that were made as a consequence of those meetings. She was of the impression that ASA Arrojos opinion was that this was not a prosecutable case. When asked, ASA Miller-Batiste stated that she had never received a copy of the enhanced video. She knew that it existed, but she had never viewed it. Moreover, she believed, when asked, that she had never met with the victim in the alleged theft, Mr. Alex Perez of Nemaro Jewelers. She had vague recollections of having possibly spoken on the phone with him, but this was not confirmed in any of her notes. She had spoken on the phone numerous times with Mr. Taseff and had received some correspondence from same, but she had refrained from making any decisions about filing or closing the case out during those interactions. ASA Miller-Batiste asked for a copy of the Compact Disc with the enhanced video of the alleged theft, and she was also provided with all FDLE Investigative Summaries generated and approved in this case to-date. She pledged to review the new evidence, meet with ASA Deputy Chief Arrojo, and make a definitive decision in the case.

Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:6 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:01/09/2012 Activity End Date:01/09/2012 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Meeting with ASA Sandra Miller-Batiste THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT This report is predicated on a meeting between Special Agents (SA) William V. Saladrigas and Jeffrey Pomerantz of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and attorney Allan Friedman at this Hollywood, Florida law office, regarding the ongoing civil litigation arising from an alleged retail theft at Mr. Friedmans client, Nemaro Jewelers, where in the jewelry retailer was sued by the suspect of the theft for False Imprisonment. On Thursday, January 19, 2012, Mr. Allan Friedman advised the FDLE agents that he had finally convinced the Plaintiffs attorney, Ray Taseff, to produce his clients, Thomas Kroeger and Tarin Smithline-Kroeger, for depositions in the civil matter on Monday, January 23, 2012. Repeatedly, according to Mr. Friedman, Mr. Taseff has cancelled previously scheduled depositions due to the threat of prosecution by the authorities of Mr. Kroeger in connection with the alleged August 2010 shoplifting case. However, Mr. Friedman claimed that Mr. Kroeger was now willing to come in, not invoke his fifth-amendment right, and answer all questions put to him under oath by Mr. Friedman. When questioned further about this, Mr. Taseff reportedly claimed that the Miami-Dade State Attorneys Office had contacted him and advised him that the Close-out memo was ready, as after reviewing the evidence and examining the video tape, they were convinced that no crime had been committed. Mr. Friedman advised that he was unsure of the reliability of that information, but he was ready to query Mr. Kroeger under oath about the events of August 2010, and he was also prepared for a last minute cancellation or invocation of his fifth-amendment rights. Whichever way it played out, Mr. Friedman advised SA Saladrigas that he would report the outcome to FDLE after the fact. Moreover, if Mr. Kroeger did render sworn testimony, Mr. Friedman agreed to provide copies of the transcript to FDLE. That same date, SA Saladrigas contacted Assistant State Attorney (ASA) Sandra Miller-Batiste regarding Mr. Taseffs alleged comments to Mr. Friedman about the status of the criminal case against Mr. Kroeger. ASA Miller-Batiste stated that while she was still not convinced that the case against Kroeger was prosecutable given the evidence even after reviewing the enhanced video she had not made any filing decisions yet. She wanted to personally interview the alleged victim, Alejandro Alex Perez, of Nemaro Jewelers, before making the filing decision. Moreover, she reported that no close-out memo could have

Case Number:MI-48-2786 Serial #:7 Author:Saladrigas, William Victor Office:Miami Activity Start Date:01/19/2012 Activity End Date:01/19/2012 Approved By:Johnson, Victor A. Description:Meeting with Civil Attorney Allan Friedman THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page1

201020120816090735

Case Number: MI-48-2786 IR Number: 7 been produced for Mr. Taseff, as none had been written yet. She stated that she could not confirm or deny any of what was being said, but she had not had any recent conversations with Mr. Taseff about the case, certainly not since her recent meeting with SA Saladrigas.

Page 2

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

This report is predicated on a meeting between Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), attorney Allan Friedman, and his client, Alejandro J. Perez, owner of Nemaro Jewelers, at a Hollywood, Florida law office, regarding the ongoing civil litigation arising from an alleged retail theft from Mr. Friedman's client, wherein the jewelry retailer was sued by the suspect of the theft for "False Imprisonment." On Tuesday, April 3, 2012, SA Saladrigas interviewed Mr. Perez in the presence of his attorney. Mr. Friedman asked that his client not provide sworn testimony to FDLE unless absolutely necessary, as his counterpart in the civil suit, attorney Ray Taseff, is using any and all transcripts of Mr. Perez's sworn testimony to attempt to create impeachment material against him. After interviewing Mr. Perez, SA Saladrigas agreed that it would be unnecessary to take sworn testimony. Mr. Perez claimed that he has been strongly discouraged from prosecuting Mr. Thomas Kroeger, the suspect in the retail theft case, since the initial incident. Virtually everyone in the sequence of events following the incident, according to Mr. Perez, has attempted to dissuade him from pursuing criminal charges against the suspect. He described the events leading up to, surrounding, and following the mishap as follows: Mr. Perez recalls that on July 6, 2010, Mr. Kroeger and his fiance, Tarin Smithline, along with members of her family, came to his store after being referred by a sitting judge who happens to be the president of Mr. Perez's homeowner's association. The group was looking at alternative settings for Ms. Smithline's wedding ring, as the one they had purchased was not holding together well. Mr. Perez set their ring and another setting from the store on a display tray on his jewelry counter. After showing them several other settings, he discovered that the setting that had been on the display tray next to the Smithline's ring was missing. He did not suspect them of anything at that point, and he certainly did not wish to upset them. So he started to look around for the piece, as if it may have fallen to the floor. At one point, Mr. Kroeger suggested that Mr. Perez examine his closed circuit cameras for the answer. Mr. Perez examined the video footage and observed what appeared to be Mr. Kroger taking an object from the display tray, placing it in a handbag behind him, and then picking up the second object from the same tray and appearing to examine it. As Mr. Perez returned to the display area, the Smithlines and Mr. Kroeger began to show signs of stress. They became increasingly

Case Number: MI-48-2786 Serial #: 8 Author: Saladrigas, William Victor Office: Miami Activity Start Date: 04/03/2012 Activity End Date:04/03/2012 Approved By: Arnone, William James Description:Interview of Nemaro Jeweler's owner, Mr. Alejandro J. Perez THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page : 1 of 3

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 8

boisterous and defensive. One of Mr. Perez's employees summoned Seybold Building security personnel in an attempt to restore order. Mr. Kroeger allegedly called Miami Police to respond. The security personnel and police arrived and began to investigate the matter. The Smithlines, primarily led by Tarin's mother, Marie Smithline, began to threaten everyone with lawsuits, claiming that her daughter was a City attorney, etc. After everything was said and done, the officers approached Mr. Perez, seemingly intimidated as well, and asked him how much the stolen setting was worth. Mr. Perez informed them that it was worth over $2000. The officers advised Mr. Perez that he may wish to write this off, as the suspects were important, powerful people and the matter could quickly spin out of control. Mr. Perez succumbed to the officers' recommendation and allowed for the release of Mr. Kroeger and the Smithline family without further delay. He subsequently learned of the City's unsuccessful attempt to arrest Mr. Kroeger months later. He would also learn of the lawsuit filed through Mr. Taseff, accusing Mr. Perez of having violated Mr. Kroeger and the Smithlines' civil rights by having allegedly "falsely imprisoned them in [his] store." Soon after word of the lawsuit reached him, Mr. Perez received a telephone call from an adjuster with The Hartford Insurance Company, who underwrites Nemaro's liability coverage. This was before the insurance company assigned Mr. Friedman to represent Mr. Perez and his jewelry store. The adjuster wanted to know what had happened. Mr. Perez attempted to explain the circumstances of that day to the adjuster. He concluded by explaining to the adjuster, based on his statements to the responding police officers, that he had agreed not to prosecute Mr. Kroeger for the theft. Therefore, he could not understand why they were still insisting on suing. Months later (shortly after SA Saladrigas met with Assistant State Attorney Sandra MillerBaptiste - See IR #6), Mr. Perez was summoned into the State Attorney's Office (SAO) for the first time since the alleged theft to discuss the case with ASA Miller-Baptiste. Mr. Perez initially assumed that they were calling him in to prosecute the case, but he quickly became aware of the fact that ASA Miller-Baptiste was "playing devil's advocate" simply pointing out the weaknesses in the criminal case against Mr. Kroeger. They debated the evidence for some time, and she ultimately produced a letter from the Hartford Insurance Company, which he assumed was given to the SAO by Mr. Taseff, reflecting Mr. Perez's assertions that he did not wish to prosecute Mr. Kroeger for the theft. ASA Miller-Baptiste explained to Mr. Perez that he would look like a fool when defense counsel produced the letter to impeach Mr. Perez. Mr. Perez finally advised ASA Miller-Baptiste to do whatever they believed was appropriate under the circumstances. Mr. Perez concluded by stating that in over 20 years in the jewelry business he had never witnessed anything as odd and shocking as this case. He lamented the fact that he was not a police officer or an attorney, which allowed others to manipulate him into making fatal mistakes that now would culminate in this miscarriage of justice. Mr. Friedman expressed confidence that he would be able to successfully defend his client against the damage claims by Mr. Taseff's clients. However, he too condemned the manner in which the criminal case had been initially handled by the authorities. Mr. Friedman and Mr. Perez were informed that given Mr. Perez's repeated claims that he did

Page : 2 of 3

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 8

not wish to prosecute Mr. Kroeger for the retail theft from the onset, it would really be difficult to rehabilitate the criminal case against Mr. Kroeger. The interview was terminated without taking a sworn, recorded statement from Mr. Perez.

Page : 3 of 3

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

This investigative report (IR) is predicated upon the interview of City of Miami Police Legal Advisor (PLA) George Wysong. PLA Wysong was interviewed by Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas, of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) pursuant to a complaint filed by retired Miami Police Department's Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Chief Jose Seiglie alleging that a case of alleged retail theft by Florida Bar Staff Attorney, Thomas Kroeger, had been covered up by members of the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office (SAO) in collusion with the City Attorney's Office, where Mr. Kroeger's wife is employed as an Assistant City Attorney. The following is a synopsis of the sworn, digitally recorded statement given by PLA Wysong and should not be considered a verbatim transcript. For exact details, refer to the recorded statement. On Monday, April 30, 2012, at approximately 11:04 a.m., Miami PLA George K. Wysong III rendered a sworn, digitally recorded statement at Miami Police Headquarters, 400 Northwest 2 nd Avenue, Miami, Florida, in the presence of SA Saladrigas. PLA Wysong advised that he began his career with the City of Miami approximately 18 years earlier, when he accepted a position as an Assistant City Attorney; in or about 1999, he assumed the title of Police Legal Advisor and has worked in that capacity since. PLA Wysong, after being sworn in, was briefed as to the nature of the allegation(s) made against his office and others by former Miami Assistant Chief Jose Seiglie. PLA Wysong acknowledged that he and SA Saladrigas had previously spoken by phone on Thursday, April 26th. PLA Wysong was informed that SA Saladrigas' questions would largely arise from information acquired during that conversation. PLA Wysong was asked about the current scope of his knowledge and understanding of the facts surrounding the incident involving Thomas Kroeger. PLA Wysong confirmed that he had a detailed understanding of the case, PLA Wysong recalled that he first became involved with this case as a product of "serendipity." His office is located on the fourth floor of Miami Police Headquarters; he happened to walk up one floor to the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) offices on the fifth floor on an unrelated matter. As he recalled, his intentions at the time were to discuss something with Major George Martin. When he learned that Major Martin was not in, he happened to encounter Lieutenant David Ramras, who inquired as to the nature of his visit. After explaining to Lieutenant Ramras the intent of his visit, the Lieutenant described how they happened to be waiting for a lawyer,

Case Number: MI-48-2786 Serial #: 9 Author: Saladrigas, William Victor Office: Miami Activity Start Date: 04/30/2012 Activity End Date:04/30/2012 Approved By: Arnone, William James Description:Sworn Statement of Miami Police Legal Advisor George K. Wysong III. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page : 1 of 4

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 9

who was expected at Miami Police Headquarters to be arrested. Lieutenant Ramras then briefed PLA Wysong on the rudimentary details of the case. PLA Wysong added that earlier that same day, he had received a call from the City Attorney, Julie Bru, which he had characterized as "cryptic." She telephoned PLA Wysong and asked him if he had heard about an attorney being arrested. He responded that he had heard nothing like that but would be happy to enquire. Ms. Bru said, "No, no, that's okay" and hung up. After speaking with Lieutenant Ramras, PLA Wysong deduced that this had been what Ms. Bru had been asking about. Lieutenant Ramras explained that the subject, Thomas Kroeger, was a Florida Bar attorney, and he was being arrested for retail theft. PLA Wysong would come to learn of some relationship between Kroeger and a member of the City Attorney's Office, specifically Tarin Smithline. When questioned, PLA Wysong vehemently denied making any comments to or in the presence of any police official during that visit, which could have been construed as an attempt to influence the decision to arrest or not arrest Kroeger. PLA Wysong explained that he does not enjoy the impunity afforded Assistant State Attorneys (ASA) on filing decisions. So he makes it a practice to never place himself "between the officer and the decision to charge or not charge." He recalled that Kroeger never showed up that day to be arrested. He remained at CID that day because he understood that Lieutenant Ramras wanted him there to deal with the attorney representing Kroeger. If Kroeger had surrendered, PLA Wysong would not have been involved with any operational aspect of the subject interrogation or arrest. Later that same date, he was further apprised of the details of the case. As he recalled, Chief Seiglie showed up at one point and directed Detective Cassandra Reese, the lead investigator in the case, to show everyone the closed circuit video allegedly capturing the theft by Thomas Kroeger. After viewing the video, PLA Wysong concluded that the footage appeared to clearly reflect that "there was an article that was there, that was then picked up, perhaps placed in a purse...it looked to [PLA Wysong] like there could be probable cause to make an arrest for theft." That first day, however, the debate was not centered on whether to make the arrest or not, but how the arrest should be made: probable cause or a signed arrest warrant. PLA Wysong was informed that the evidence and facts had been vetted by an ASA, who confirmed that there was probable cause to arrest. However, PLA Wysong explained that there had been several previous incidents between the SAO and the Miami Police Department, wherein a verbal approval to arrest had been given by the SAO, and after the arrest, charges were dropped by the SAO citing lack of probable cause. This historically has led to lawsuits against the Miami Police Department for civil rights violations, false arrest claims, etc. Therefore, PLA Wysong has remained sensitive to the officers' decision making process to ensure a legally favorable outcome for the officer. PLA Wysong cited a recent case where persons related to a family member of civic activist Georgia Ayers were arrested for accepting monies to sign off on matters involving the "alternative programs" funding. As a result of the subsequent filing decision of the SAO - after Miami police officials arrested on probable cause - several of the accused in the case are now suing the City. PLA Wysong indicated that his intention was not to influence the decision to arrest, but only to ensure that the arrest was made pursuant to a State issued, fully executed arrest warrant. His understanding at the time was that the SAO had already approved the probable cause arrest. The City would simply have to inform the SAO that they would prefer to

Page : 2 of 4

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 9

make a warrant arrest, and the warrant would be forthcoming. For a period of time, the matter was not discussed with the City Attorney. After he received permission from the police to alert her on the issue of the subject's relationship with an Assistant City Attorney, PLA Wysong met with Ms. Bru, who after hearing the facts, allegedly responded, "Well, I don't think we should be involved; back off; stay out of it." PLA Wysong did as he was instructed. Sometime later, PLA Wysong was invited by Deputy Chief ASA Jose Arrojo to a meeting with Kroeger's attorney, Ray Taseff, at the SAO. PLA Wysong denied having an agenda when he attended this meeting: He reported that he was there strictly to observe and determine what the SAO's ultimate decision would be. At one point in the meeting, ASA Arrojo produced an enhanced version of the closed circuit video he had previously observed at the Miami Police Headquarters that first day. He and Mr. Taseff watched the video with ASA Arrojo. PLA Wysong opined that "at that point, Mr. Taseff would try and negotiate a plea deal for his client because...it looked like rather compelling video to [him]." PLA Wysong inferred from ASA Arrojo's comments that the video evidence appeared very compelling to him as well. PLA Wysong remarked that "true to his nature," Mr. Taseff simply attempted to explain away the evidence, citing that "while it looks bad, his client essentially stripped down to his underwear" and made one or both of the women's handbags available for inspection. PLA Wysong could not recall if both or only one bag was actually searched. Mr. Taseff attempted to create the image that Kroeger and the Smithlines made themselves fully vulnerable to search and proved they had nothing on them. Mr. Taseff also argued that the video was unclear because you do not actually see a shiny object where the alleged ring was to have been located. However, PLA Wysong explained that it was his understanding from the vendor, that the display had fingers, and one of the fingers was missing a ring. That is when the vendor apparently suspected theft. PLA Wysong remarked that there may have been some "proof issues, but for probable cause purposes...it looked pretty good." PLA Wysong was asked if he had ever questioned the actions of the responding uniform officers who had investigated the initial incident at Nemaro Jewelers, Inc.. He stated that he had not because he had come into the matter "on the back end not the front end." The only facts PLA Wysong claimed to know about the original incident are that the suspects were allegedly locked into the jewelry store; the police responded; and that is when the suspect(s) were reportedly searched. He could not recall how effectively the officers conducted the alleged search. After the meeting at the SAO, he has had no other involvement in the case, except one instance where he briefly questioned Detective Reese during a chance encounter about the status of the case, and he was informed that the SAO had not provided a final filing decision in the case. PLA Wysong noted that the statute of limitations is still running in the case against Kroeger, so an arrest could still be made; however, he did not know if a final decision had been rendered by the SAO. PLA Wysong concluded by voicing the fact that he was "shocked and dismayed" by Chief Seiglie's complaint in this matter, citing that, in his opinion, he had done only what he was paid to do, which is provide legal advice in police matters. The complaint, according to PLA Wysong,

Page : 3 of 4

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 9

had a "chilling effect" on him vis--vis his role with the police because it would tend to make him second guess himself when asked to provide legal advice to the police. While he remarked that he would not allow himself to be so influenced, it did give him pause. PLA Wysong characterized his experience with Chief Seiglie as a "great working relationship." He described Chief Seiglie as a "cop's cop," and he expressed surprise by his allegations. PLA Wysong feels that "this allegation seems to be motivated by something other than a true search for the truth, and that's what disturbs [him]." The statement was concluded at 11:24 a.m. A copy of the digital recording will be retained as a related item to this IR.

Page : 4 of 4

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

This investigative report (IR) is predicated upon a complaint, filed by the Miami Police Department's (MPD) retired Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Chief, Jose Seiglie, who claimed that a case of alleged retail theft by Florida Bar Staff Attorney, Thomas Kroeger, had been covered up by members of the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office (SAO) in collusion with the City Attorney's Office, where Mr. Kroeger's wife is employed as an Assistant City Attorney. After reviewing all of the videotaped evidence produced by the victim of the alleged retail theft, some of which was enhanced for the MPD by the United States Secret Service (USSS), interviewing the relevant witnesses to the alleged cover up, and analyzing the evidence uncovered throughout the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigation, Special Agent (SA) William V. Saladrigas recommended closing out the investigation without further action. The videotaped evidence, in its many forms, does appear to evince actions by Thomas Kroeger suggestive of theft, when coupled with the accusation by the victim, Alex Perez, who testified that a ring setting was uncovered missing immediately after said actions. However, it is important to note, seemingly from the beginning - starting with the responding officers at Nemaro Jewelers - that Mr. Perez was reportedly influenced in his decision to pursue prosecution against these suspects who were said to be "important, powerful people." The police officers, according to Mr. Perez, encouraged him to write-off the loss of the ring. Mr. Perez also pointed out that when he was first interviewed by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office (SAO), over a year after the incident, the Assistant State Attorney (ASA) simply enumerated the weaknesses in the case, culminating with a letter reportedly produced by Mr. Perez's liability insurance company, citing the fact that Mr. Perez did not wish to prosecute the suspect in this case. Mr. Perez lamented the fact that the influence exerted against him, coupled with his lack of knowledge of the law, led to what he characterized as a "miscarriage of justice." When interviewed, Miami Police Legal Advisor (PLA) George Wysong was very forthcoming to FDLE about his role in the incident. PLA Wysong credibly testified that his involvement in the case was not conspiratorial at all but designed to mitigate the MPD's liability. While he averred that he never made any comments intended to affect the decision to arrest or not arrest, he did, based on previous mishaps involving miscommunications with the SAO, strongly recommend

Case Number: MI-48-2786 Serial #: 10 Author: Saladrigas, William Victor Office: Miami Activity Start Date: 08/02/2012 Activity End Date:08/02/2012 Approved By: Arnone, William James Description:Acquisition of Close Out Memo and Final FDLE Report to Close Case THIS REPORT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE AGENCY TO WHICH IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS EITHER PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. ITS CONTENTS ARE NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE YOUR AGENCY.

Page : 1 of 2

201020120816090735

Case Number IR Number

MI-48-2786 10

that the MPD ask the SAO for an arrest warrant before taking further action with regards to Mr. Kroeger. Mr. Wysong expressed his opinion that throughout the theft investigation, including the meeting with ASA Jose Arrojo and Attorney Ray Taseff, he believed, based on the evidence, that Mr. Kroeger would be arrested. He was loath to give a legal reason why it ultimately did not occur. However, despite the apparent peculiarities throughout the nearly two-year time period that this matter remained an open, criminal case, there is no avoiding the fact that Mr. Perez, for whatever reason(s), did inform his liability insurance carrier that he did not wish to pursue criminal charges against the victim. This would have presented the SAO with an insurmountable obstacle to the successful prosecution of any theft charge. There is no evidence of any collusion between the SAO and the Miami City Attorney's Office of a cover-up in this matter. It is recommended that the case be closed without further investigation. A copy of the SAO's Close-Out Memo in the criminal case against Thomas Kroeger will be retained as a related item to this IR.

Page : 2 of 2

201020120816090735

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

Case Related Items Print
Case #
MI-48-2786

Module General Case Profile Last Update Date 04/30/2012 15:00:05 Last Update By Saladrigas, William Victor

RI Seq # GCP-1

Key 1 (Case #) MI-48-2786

Key 2 Key 3

File Name

Description

Email from FDLE to Miami Email from FDLE to Miami Police Legal PLA George Wysong.pdf Advisor George Wysong Module Investigative Report

Case #
MI-48-2786

RI Seq # INV-1 INV-2 INV-3 INV-4 INV-5

Key 1 (Case #) MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786

Key 2 Key 3 1 2 2 3 3

File Name

Description Sworn, digitally recorded statement of Jose Seiglie

Last Update Date 10/26/2011 09:22:04 11/03/2011 14:24:37 11/03/2011 14:25:19 11/21/2011 12:51:42

Last Update By Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor

Taseff Letter.pdf Statement of Facts.pdf

Letter from Attorney Ray Taseff to Nemaro Jewelers, Inc. Statement of Fact, Miami Police Case, Grand Theft Sworn Statement of Miami Detective Cassandra Reese

USSS Enhanced Closed Circuit Video Footage 11/21/2011 of Kroeger Shoplifting Incident 12:53:23 Sworn statement of Miami Police Lieutenant David Ramras 11/22/2011 12:57:23

INV-6

MI-48-2786

Page

of

08/16/2012 09.03.01

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

Case Related Items Print
Case #
MI-48-2786

Module Investigative Report Last Update Date 01/12/2012 13:01:55 01/12/2012 13:06:45 Last Update By Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor Saladrigas, William Victor

RI Seq # INV-7 INV-8 INV-9

Key 1 (Case #) MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786 MI-48-2786

Key 2 Key 3 5 5 9

File Name Court Filings Case 1103731CA-8.pdf Court Filings Case 1103731CA-8.pdf

Description Court Filings Case No. 11-03731CA-8 Court Filings Case 11-03731-8

Sworn digital recording of Miami Police Legal 05/02/2012 Advisor George K. Wysong III 12:48:49 Kroeger Close Out Memo.pdf MDSAO Kroeger Close Out Memo 08/02/2012 13:21:37

INV-10

MI-48-2786

10

Page

of

08/16/2012 09.03.01