Jonathan Owens Doesn't Rate a Taxpayer Funded Legal Defense

Because mere possession of personal identification information by those who are unauthorized is a crime, and Jonathan Owens freely admits he possesses such information, his request for a taxpayer funded legal defense should be met with a denial.

Tomorrow morning on our agenda of the regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, we will be discussing a request from former employee Jonathan Owens.  

Owens is requesting that county taxpayers fund his legal defense in a civil lawsuit he is facing and also in an ethics complaint he is defending.

Yes, the county does have a policy that provides, in some circumstances, a legal defense for an employee who faces litigation arising from such an employee's normal and routine employment activities.

Jonathan's case does not meet that standard.  

And many believe Jonathan is actually guilty of a crime, a third degree felony, by possessing, unauthorized, the personal identification information on five or more individuals, which is illegal under Florida Law. 

Owens claims he innocently, when he was a county employee, came into possession of a file containing this personal identification information.  Furthermore, he admitted reading this file, keeping it, and disseminating it unredacted to a law firm suing the county.  He admitted his possession of this file in the newspaper and on the radio on Andrew Tallman McKay's program on AM1620 back on August 7th. (transcript here)

This is why law enforcement is investigating this issue--they know it is illegal, too! They (law enforcement and the State Attorney's Office) know this file has pictures, text messages, and other information that should not be possessed by anyone who is not authorized to possess it.  Mere possession under the statute is unlawful.  --and Jonathan is specifically NOT authorized to possess this file, which contains:

a.     Social security numbers for at least 3 individuals.

b.     User names and passwords for e-mail and service accounts.

c.    American Banking Association routing and bank account numbers for multiple accounts.

d.     The address and access codes for the electronic gate and lock on a private residential condominium.

e.     Photographs of the Passports of two persons.

f.      IRS tax returns for two separate persons.

g.     Insurance cards.

h.     Credit and debit card pictures, numbers and PINs.

i.      Pictures of Driver’s Licenses of two separate persons.

j.      W-2 forms for one person.

 

6.         Additionally, the file includes personal and private discussions on the following health matters relating to at least 13 different individual citizens who are not public figures and that are also not in any way connected to Escambia County’s Government:

 

            a.         Colonoscopy.

            b.         Hospitalizations.

            c.         Psychological Diagnoses.

            d.         Miscarriage.

            e.         Cancer.

            f.          Heart attack.

            g.         Parkinson’s Disease.

            h.         Cancer diagnosis and prognosis.

            i.          Suicide.

            j.          COVID Vaccination Status.

            k.         COVID Diagnoses.

Information such as this, above, is not a public record and would not be released under any public records request ever.  If people want public records, they should request them, not steal and distribute them as has happened here.  And because Jonathan has a copy of the stolen files and has admitted this--he must also know this:  mere possession of such information by those who are unauthorized is a crime, and therefore Owens' request for a taxpayer funded legal defense should be met with a denial.

So What Does Fla. Stat. § 817.5685 Say, and What Does it Mean?

In the iconic opening credits sequence
of 1977's Saturday Night Fever, John
Travolta "struts" down the New York
street, carrying a can of paint.

I'm not a lawyer but I know several of them and I can read.  

So when I read the letter sent to law enforcement by the County Attorney in the aftermath of the recent data breach/theft of county records from the IT department-----I paid close attention to it.  The letter was sent to the State Attorney's Office in June, and a certain statute referenced in there piqued my interest. § 817.5685.  

This theft of information from the county which prompted the letter-- which breach subsequently led to confidential, private, privileged information being unlawfully possessed and disseminated by former county employee Jonathan Owens, a fact that he himself has admitted on the radio and in the news paper and a fact the attorneys for Rayme Edler have also confirmed --this theft is now being investigated by law enforcement.

And I am confident the authorities will find the guilty party who stole this protected, exempt information--whoever it was.

But even if someone other than Jonathan Owens actually stole the information and records (which I do not believe), and simply provided them to Jonathan while he was an employee of the county, as he, Jonathan, has publicly stated--it does not absolve Jonathan of any wrongdoing under this statute--because  according to this statute--the operative word is "possessed". Jonathan admitted to the PNJ in this article and on the radio on Tallman McKay's show that he not only read the text file and continues to possess it--- he's also  subsequently given it to others un-redacted. 

Because  he read it--Jonathan knew or should have known it contained exempt and personal identification information that should not only never be released--it should never even be possessed by anyone not specifically authorized to have it.  Jonathan is not authorized to have it--and he knows it.  

A thorough review of this file that Jonathan Owens unlawfully possessed, read, and then released un-redacted has now been completed--- and it has been revealed that this file contains more than 100 lines of exempt information.  (social security numbers of multiple persons, bank account numbers of multiple persons, loan numbers of multiple persons,  medical conditions, diagnoses and prognoses records of at least a dozen local citizens, security codes, access codes for premises, medical records and diagnoses on dependents on the county's medical plan as well as confidential medical information on citizens unaffiliated with the county that live out of state, privileged attorney client conversations,  and other sensitive information that would NEVER be released under any public records request, ever.).  

So why would someone who has handled a literal ton of public records requests (Owens, who was disgraced former D2 commissioner Doug Underhill's personal secretary and office manager) and who purportedly knows the rules and laws on this topic--supposedly------why would he release such information unredacted in contravention to Florida law?  Who knows, but he seems awfully proud about it.  Super proud and confident.  Almost as if he's strutting about it, like John Travolta in the opening scenes of "Saturday Night Fever." 

So What Does Fla. Stat. § 817.5685 Say, and What Does it Mean, and what penalties does it describe for violation, anyway?

Here is the relevant portion of the statute, verbatim

"817.5685 Unlawful possession of the personal identification information of another person.—

(1) As used in this section, the term “personal identification information” means a person’s social security number, official state-issued or United States-issued driver license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number, Medicaid or food assistance account number, bank account number, credit or debit card number, and medical records.

(2) It is unlawful for a person to intentionally or knowingly possess, without authorization, the personal identification information of another person in any form, including, but not limited to, mail, physical documents, identification cards, or information stored in digital form.

(3)(a) A person who violates subsection (2) and in doing so possesses the personal identification information of four or fewer persons commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b)1. Proof that a person used or was in possession of the personal identification information of five or more individuals, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person who used or was in possession of the personal identification information did so knowingly and intentionally without authorization.

2. A person who violates subsection (2) and in doing so possesses the personal identification information of five or more persons commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084."