IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO<BR> Case No. 99CV169-2<P> Complaint for Injunctive Relief (FILED UNDER SEAL)<P> Alexander M. Hunter<BR> District Attorney in and for <BR> the 20th. Judicial District, <BR> Plaintiff<P> vs.<P> Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit<BR> Defendant<P><BR> First Claim for Relief: Conversion<P> 1. Plaintiff Alexander M. Hunter is the District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, State of<BR> Colorado, and maintains his offices in Boulder County Colorado;<P> 2. Plaintiff Hunter is charged with the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses<BR> committed against the people of the state of Colorado within Boulder County;<P> 3. The Boulder Police Department is the primary investigating agency for crimes committed against<BR> the People of the State of Colorado within the City of Boulder;<P> 4. The Boulder District Attorney and the Boulder Police Department are conducting a joint criminal<BR> investigation (hereinafter “the investigation”) into the death of Jonbenet Ramsey, which occurred in<BR> the City of Boulder on or about December 26, 1996;<P> 5. Defendant, Andrew Louis Smit, was formerly employed as an investigator by the Office of the<BR> District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District. He performed his duties in an office in the Boulder<BR> Criminal Justice Center, in Boulder County Colorado;<P> 6. Defendant, while employed by the Office of the District Attorney, was assigned to the<BR> investigation of the death of JonBenet Ramsey;<P> 7. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police<BR> Department took photographs of the crime scene, autopsy and related evidence. In addition, the<BR> crime scene was video taped on the night of 12-26-96;<P> 8.Copies if all photographs and video tapes taken by Boulder Police Department personnel were given<BR> to the District Attorneys Office for use in the official investigation into the homicide;<P> 9.Said photographs and video tape, and the images they depict are the property of the Boulder Police<BR> Department and the Boulder District Attorney;<P> 10. As part of the investigation into the death of JonBenet Ramsey, personnel from the Boulder Police<BR> Department and the District Attorney’s Office generated reports and transcriptions of interviews with<BR> witnesses;<P> 11. In his capacity as in investigator in the Ramsey case, Defendant had access to all evidence<BR> generated in the case, including, reports, transcripts, video tapes and photographs taken by<BR> members of the Boulder Police Department;<P> 12. In September, 1998, Defendant resigned from his position with the District Attorney’s Office. He<BR> was requested by Plaintiff to return all property of the Boulder District Attorney that was in his<BR> possession at that time;<P> 13. On September 30, 1998, Defendant was given a letter by Plaintiff (exhibit A) which directed<BR> Defendant to confirm, in writing that he had returned all materials and information connected with the<BR> Ramsey investigation;<P> 14. Defendant was also provided a letter to return to Plaintiff, certifying that he had complied with<BR> his obligation to return all property of the District Attorney that he had in his possession. (exhibit B);<P> 15. At the present time, Defendant has in his possession a compact disc which contains digital copies<BR> of many, if not all, of the photographs previously described. This compact disc was produced by<BR> digitally scanning the original photographs or authorized copies of the original photographs with a<BR> digitizer. The digital images were then transferred to the compact disc;<P> 16. On January 22, 1999 and January 26, 1999, defendant admitted that he took the disc with him<BR> when he resigned from his employment. <P> 17. On the same dates, Defendant admitted to Plaintiff that he has transferred images from the<BR> compact disc to his personal computer and to other compact discs;<P> 18. On the same dates, Defendant acknowledged to Plaintiff that he also has in his possession or<BR> control a copy of the video tape of the crime scene;<P> 19. Upon learning that Defendant had materials and photographs in his possession, Plaintiff drew<BR> Defendant’s attention to Exhibit B. Defendant stated that he had not signed it.<P> 20. Plaintiff avers on information and belief that Defendant has in his possession or control digital or<BR> paper copies of reports and transcriptions of witness interviews generated in the investigation.<P> 21. Defendant’s receipt of or removal of the compact disc and the video tape from the Office of the<BR> District Attorney was without the authorization of Plaintiff;<P> 22. Defendant’s copying of the digital images and/or video images onto other media was done without<BR> the authorization of Plaintiff;<P> 23 Defendant’s receipt of , removal or copying of digital or paper copies of reports and transcriptions<BR> of witness interviews generated in the investigation was done without Plaintiff's Authorization;<P> 24. Plaintiff has requested defendant to return the compact disc and any copies of it. Plaintiff offered<BR> to back up and preserve any data on Defendant’s personal computer for use by Defendant if and<BR> when Defendant may appear in any official proceeding . Defendant has refused to surrender the discs<BR> and erase unauthorized material from his computer;<P><BR> WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court <P> 1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and award Plaintiff the following relief:<P> 2.Order that Defendant provide an accounting to Plaintiff of all reports, transcriptions of witness<BR> interviews stored by whatever means, and copies of any complete or partial photographs previously<BR> described that are in his possession or control;<P> <b> 3.Order that Defendant surrender to Plaintiff all reports, transcripts of witness interviews, storage<BR> devices on which any photographic or video images are stored, including., but not limited to, compact<BR> discs, fixed discs, zip discs, floppy discs or magnetic tapes which are in his possession or control;<P> 4.Order that all discs be reviewed by Plaintiff or his designee(s) and that plaintiff be permitted to<BR> permanently erase any of the above described images that are stored on said media;</b><P> 5.Order that Plaintiff be permitted to retain any disc which can not be permanently erased and;<P> 6.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.<P><BR> Second Claim for Relief; Breach of Contract<P> 1.Plaintiff incorporates averments 1-24 of his first claim for relief as if restated here in full.<P> 2.Defendant was bound by a written contract of employment (Exhibit C) which specifically prohibits<BR> him from disclosing, during the course of his employment or thereafter,, any information that he<BR> learned in connection with his official duties with the District Attorney’s Office;<P> 3.That Defendant has breached his contract by disclosing to unauthorized persons material<BR> information which he learned of or came into possession of during the course of his employment;<BR> Defendant has publicly stated that he will continue to investigate the death of JonBenet Ramsey as a<BR> private citizen.<P> 4.On information and belief, Defendant’s investigation will disclose information which he learned of or<BR> came into possession of during the course of his employment;<P> 5.The disclosure of investigative information during the pendency of the official investigation will<BR> produce irreparable harm to Plaintiff and impair his ability to perform his official duties in the<BR> investigation;<P> 6.Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s breach and<BR> anticipated future breaches of his contract of employment. <P> WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Honorable Court:<P> 1.Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant;<P> 2.Enjoin Defendant from disclosing through any means any information which Defendant learned of or<BR> came into possession of during the course of his employment with the District Attorney’s Office<BR> unless authorized in writing by the District Attorney or by order of this court;<P> 3.Order such other relief that the court deems appropriate.<P><BR> Dated February 1, 1999 Michael J. Kane<BR> Deputy District Attorney (Reg. No. 9790) <BR> District Attorney’s Office<BR> 1777 6th. St.<BR> Boulder CO, 80306

<BR> IN THE DISTRICT COURT, BOULDER COUNTY, COLORADO<BR> Case No. 99 Division 2<P> STIPULATED COURT ORDER<P> Alexander M. Hunter,<BR> District Attorney in and for <BR> the 20th Judicial District<BR> Plaintiff,<BR> v.<BR> Andrew Louis (Lou) Smit<BR> Defendant<P> THE COURT, based upon a stipulation of the parties, hereby enters the following order which replaces<BR> all previous orders entered into this case.<P> GENERAL STIPULATION<P> 1. The parties stipulate that each of them has acted in good faith in performing the terms of the<BR> employeement agreement in question, and that this stipulation is entered into in an effort to resolve<BR> misunderstanding which have arisen between them. Detective Smit has entered into these<BR> stipulations because he has never had an intention to release information to the public during the<BR> pending grand jury investigation. Plaintiffs stipulate that they have no evidence that Detective Smit<BR> ever misused any information that was entrusted to him, nor do they have any evidence that he<BR> intended to misuse such information in the future.<P> POSSESSION OF INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS<P> 2. Detective Smit shall be allowed to retain one copy of the Powerpoint demonstration, and shall turn<BR> over a second copy to the Plaintiff. <P> 3. Detective Smit has shredded all of his paper copies of the case time line, lead sheets and index,<BR> and shall turn over all databases containing these documents to the Plaintiff. Since Plaintiff contends<BR> that these items are privileged work product, Smit shall not retain a copy of these items.<BR><b><BR> 4. Smit shall retain a copy of the Powerpoint demonstration in his own home or in some other safe and secure place.<P> 5. The Plaintiff shall maintain and will not erase or destroy the Powerpoint demonstration, the case<BR> time line, lead sheets and index.<BR></b><BR> DISCLOSURE BEFORE CHARGES FILED<P> 6. Until charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall not show the Powerpoint<BR> demonstration or any of the photographs contained therein to anyone, nor shall he disclose<BR> confidential information that he has learned during the course of his employmentunless such<BR> information is already in the public domain.<P> 7. During the time period set forth in paragraph 6 above, Detective Smit may continue to investigate<BR> the murder of JonBenét Ramsey bu in doing so will make it clear that he is investigating on his<BR> ownand not as a representative of the police, district attorney or grand jury. Furthermore, during any<BR> such investigation, Smit shall not intentionally interfere with the police, district attorney, or grand<BR> jury investigation.<P> DISCLOSURE AFTER CHARGES FILED/TIME LIMIT<P> 8. After charges are filed in the Ramsey case, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information<BR> to anyone, including any person who may be charged with the death of JonBenét Ramsey; PROVIDED<BR> HOWEVER, Smit agrees that he shall not disclose to anyone conversations he has had with any<BR> attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney, unless ordered to do<BR> so by a court of competant jurisdiction.<BR><b><BR> 9. If no charges are filed by October 1, 1999, Detective Smit shall be free to disclose any information<BR> to anyone,</b> but Smit agrees that he shall not at any time in the future disclose any conversations he<BR> has had with any attorney working for the district attorney, or consulted by the district attorney,<BR> unless ordered to do so by a court of competant jurisdiction.<P> PROCEDURE FOR EXTENSION OF THIS ORDER<P> 10. If no charges are filed by September 1, 1999, the Plaintiff may seek consecutive 30 day<BR> extensions of the provisions set forth in paragraphs 4, 6 and 7 above, but in doing so, the Plaintiff will<BR> be required to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that a continuing prior restraint on<BR> Detective Smit's freedom of expression is necessary.<P> Dated the 30th of March, 1999<BR> By the Court <BR> (Can't read the signature or I would note the judge's name)<P> Also signed by Alex Hunter, Lou Smit, Michael Kane and J Gregory Walta (attorney for Smit)<BR>