IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99CV169-2 Complaint for Injunctive Relief (FILED UNDER SEAL)
Alexander M. Hunter
District Attorney in and for
the 20th. Judicial District,
Plaintiff
vs.
Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant
First Claim for Relief: Conversion
1. Plaintiff Alexander M. Hunter is the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, State of
Colorado, and maintains his offices in Boulder County Colorado;
2. Plaintiff Hunter is charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses
committed against the people of the state of Colorado within Boulder County;
3. The Boulder Police Department is the primary investigating agency for crimes committed against
the People of the State of Colorado within the City of Boulder;
4. The Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department are conducting a joint criminal
investigation (hereinafter “the investigation”) into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, which occurred in
the City of Boulder on or about December 26, 1996;
5. Defendant, Andrew Louis Smit, was formerly employed as an investigator by the Office of the
District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District. He performed his duties in an office in the Boulder
Criminal Justice Center, in Boulder County Colorado;
6. Defendant, while employed by the Office of the District Attorney, was assigned to the
investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey;
7. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department took photographs of the crime scene, autopsy and related evidence. In addition, the
crime scene was video taped on the night of 12-26-96;
8.Copies if all photographs and video tapes taken by Boulder Police Department personnel were given
to the District Attorneys Office for use in the official investigation into the homicide;
9.Said photographs and video tape, and the images they depict are the property of the Boulder Police
Department and the Boulder District Attorney;
10. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police
Department and the District Attorney’s Office generated reports and transcriptions of interviews with
witnesses;
11. In his capacity as in investigator in the Ramsey case, Defendant had access to all evidence
generated in the case, including, reports, transcripts, video tapes and photographs taken by
members of the Boulder Police Department;
12. In September, 1998, Defendant resigned from his position with the District Attorney’s Office. He
was requested by Plaintiff to return all property of the Boulder District Attorney that was in his
possession at that time;
13. On September 30, 1998, Defendant was given a letter by Plaintiff (exhibit A) which directed
Defendant to confirm, in writing that he had returned all materials and information connected with the
Ramsey investigation;
14. Defendant was also provided a letter to return to Plaintiff, certifying that he had complied with
his obligation to return all property of the District Attorney that he had in his possession. (exhibit B);
15. At the present time, Defendant has in his possession a compact disc which contains digital copies
of many, if not all, of the photographs previously described. This compact disc was produced by
digitally scanning the original photographs or authorized copies of the original photographs with a
digitizer. The digital images were then transferred to the compact disc;
16. On January 22, 1999 and January 26, 1999, defendant admitted that he took the disc with him
when he resigned from his employment.
17. On the same dates, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff that he has transferred images from the
compact disc to his personal computer and to other compact discs;
18. On the same dates, Defendant acknowledged to Plaintiff that he also has in his possession or
control a copy of the video tape of the crime scene;
19. Upon learning that Defendant had materials and photographs in his possession, Plaintiff drew
Defendant’s attention to Exhibit B. Defendant stated that he had not signed it.
20. Plaintiff avers on information and belief that Defendant has in his possession or control digital or
paper copies of reports and transcriptions of witness interviews generated in the investigation.
21. Defendant’s receipt of or removal of the compact disc and the video tape from the Office of the
District Attorney was without the authorization of Plaintiff;
22. Defendant’s copying of the digital images and/or video images onto other media was done without
the authorization of Plaintiff;
23 Defendant’s receipt of , removal or copying of digital or paper copies of reports and transcriptions
of witness interviews generated in the investigation was done without Plaintiff's Authorization;
24. Plaintiff has requested defendant to return the compact disc and any copies of it. Plaintiff offered
to back up and preserve any data on Defendant’s personal computer for use by Defendant if and
when Defendant may appear in any official proceeding . Defendant has refused to surrender the discs
and erase unauthorized material from his computer;
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court
1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award Plaintiff the following relief:
2.Order that Defendant provide an accounting to Plaintiff of all reports, transcriptions of witness
interviews stored by whatever means, and copies of any complete or partial photographs previously
described that are in his possession or control;
3.Order that Defendant surrender to Plaintiff all reports, transcripts of witness interviews, storage
devices on which any photographic or video images are stored, including., but not limited to, compact
discs, fixed discs, zip discs, floppy discs or magnetic tapes which are in his possession or control;
4.Order that all discs be reviewed by Plaintiff or his designee(s) and that plaintiff be permitted to
permanently erase any of the above described images that are stored on said media;
5.Order that Plaintiff be permitted to retain any disc which can not be permanently erased and;
6.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.
Second Claim for Relief; Breach of Contract
1.Plaintiff incorporates averments 1-24 of his first claim for relief as if restated here in full.
2.Defendant was bound by a written contract of employment (Exhibit C) which specifically prohibits
him from disclosing, during the course of his employment or thereafter,, any information that he
learned in connection with his official duties with the District Attorney’s Office;
3.That Defendant has breached his contract by disclosing to unauthorized persons material
information which he learned of or came into possession of during the course of his employment;
Defendant has publicly stated that he will continue to investigate the death of JonBenet Ramsey as a
private citizen.
4.On information and belief, Defendant’s investigation will disclose information which he learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment;
5.The disclosure of investigative information during the pendency of the official investigation will
produce irreparable harm to Plaintiff and impair his ability to perform his official duties in the
investigation;
6.Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s breach and
anticipated future breaches of his contract of employment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court:
1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;
2.Enjoin Defendant from disclosing through any means any information which Defendant learned of or
came into possession of during the course of his employment with the District Attorney’s Office
unless authorized in writing by the District Attorney or by order of this court;
3.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.
Dated February 1, 1999 Michael J. Kane
Deputy District Attorney (Reg. No. 9790)
District Attorney’s Office
1777 6th. St.
Boulder CO, 80306
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Court's response"
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO
Case No. 99 Division 2
STIPULATED COURT ORDER
Alexander M. Hunter,
District Attorney in and for
the 20th Judicial District
Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit
Defendant
THE COURT, based upon a stipulation of the parties, hereby enters the following order which replaces
all previous orders entered into this case.
GENERAL STIPULATION
1. The parties stipulate that each of them has acted in good faith in performing the terms of the
employeement agreement in question, and that this stipulation is entered into in an effort to resolve
misunderstanding which have arisen between them. Detective Smit has entered into these
stipulations because he has never had an intention to release information to the public during the
pending grand jury investigation. Plaintiffs stipulate that they have no evidence that Detective Smit
ever misused any information that was entrusted to him, nor do they have any evidence that he
intended to misuse such information in the future.
POSSESSION OF INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS
2. Detective Smit shall be allowed to retain one copy of the Powerpoint demonstration, and shall turn
over a second copy to the Plaintiff.
3. Detective Smit has shredded all of his paper copies of the case time line, lead sheets and index,
and shall turn over all databases containing these documents to the Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff contends
that these items are privileged work product, Smit shall not retain a copy of these items.
4. Smit shall retain a copy of the Powerpoint demonstration in his own home or in some other safe and
secure place.
5. The Plaintiff shall maintain and will not erase or destroy the Powerpoint demonstration, the case
time line, lead sheets and index.
DISCLOSURE BEFORE CHARGES FILED
6. Until charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall not show the Powerpoint
demonstration or any of the photographs contained therein to anyone, nor shall he disclose
confidential information that he has learned during the course of his employmentunless such
information is already in the public domain.
7. During the time period set forth in paragraph 6 above, Detective Smit may continue to investigate
the murder of JonBenét Ramsey bu in doing so will make it clear that he is investigating on his
ownand not as a representative of the police, district attorney or grand jury. Furthermore, during any
such investigation, Smit shall not intentionally interfere with the police, district attorney, or grand
jury investigation.
DISCLOSURE AFTER CHARGES FILED/TIME LIMIT
8. After charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information
to anyone, including any person who may be charged with the death of JonBenét Ramsey; PROVIDED
HOWEVER, Smit agrees that he shall not disclose to anyone conversations he has had with any
attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney, unless ordered to do
so by a court of competant jurisdiction.
9. If no charges are filed by October 1, 1999, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information
to anyone, but Smit agrees that he shall not at any time in the future disclose any conversations he
has had with any attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney,
unless ordered to do so by a court of competant jurisdiction.
PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION OF THIS ORDER
10. If no charges are filed by September 1, 1999, the Plaintiff may seek consecutive 30 day
extensions of the provisions set forth in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 above, but in doing so, the Plaintiff will
be required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a continuing prior restraint on
Detective Smit's freedom of expression is necessary.
Dated the 30th of March, 1999
By the Court
(Can't read the signature or I would note the judge's name)
Also signed by Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Michael Kane and J Gregory Walta (attorney for Smit)