BY THE RESPONDENT:

Q. On September 5, 2018, you wrote in your report that you

learned while investigating the case that a crime was not
committed. So what I would like you to do is just read --
this is from the police report. Read that highlighted area
out loud.

A. Do you want me to read the whole thing?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay. (As read.) "9/5 of 2018 at 1644 hours. On 9/5 of

2018 I received a response from Twitter regarding a subpoena
I had sent them regarding the Twitter accounts of
Johnsonmedia2." That's all one word. "I was advised by
Twitter that the information I requested would not be
granted under a subpoena, and I would need a search warrant
instead. Based upon the facts I have learned while
investigating this case, I do not believe a crime and
therefore will not be drafting a search warrant to be sent."

Q. Okay.

A. "This case is closed, assisted/advised, with no further

follow-up necessary."

Q. And the question is can you explain to me what that means; a

crime was not committed?

MR. HANSEN: I object as to relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer.

THE WITNESS: Sure. Well, I guess we should

probably go back because there is a typo in that report
either by my dictation or by clerical. I don't know which
one. So if I could kind of elaborate upon what it should
have said at the bottom there.

BY THE RESPONDENT:
Q. Okay.

A. So I had said that a crime had not been committed. I did

not believe there had been a crime committed by Ms. Ristau
or Ms. Beaudette. There had already been a formal process
of trying to investigate the Twitter accounts by Dakota
County, but they were not able to associate a specific
person with that account. So that is why I did not draft a
search warrant.

Q. Okay. And are you capable of determining a legitimate and a

false police report?

MR. HANSEN: Object as to relevance.

THE COURT: I don't know how you answer that

question. The question doesn't make sense to me. So
sustained.

BY THE RESPONDENT:
Q. Okay, here’s my question. How is it possible that
back on the 13th you didn't know that it was a false police
report, because you said you spoke with Deputy Wayne from
Dakota County Sheriff's office, and they said that the
investigation was complete. They were not able to determine
who was posting on this account. So my question is why then
did you continue to investigate when you knew that there was
no further information and it's still out online? So
clearly Twitter didn't take it down, so there is nothing
harassing about the post.

MR. HANSEN: I am going to object to the form of

that question.

THE COURT: There is no question there. What's

the question?

BY THE RESPONDENT:
Q. My question is the false police report. So we know that
this is a false police report. There has been no
harassment, nothing identified. So you knew back on the
13th there was no further information. Why then did you
continue to keep investigating that?

A. I guess, to try to answer your question, I guess I don't

understand the false police report aspect of it. I was
given this case to try to investigate if harassment had
taken place. That was my responsibility. I did not believe
in my findings that in a criminal case that there was a
criminal case against Ms. Ristau or Ms. Beaudette.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. Okay? If I -- but, however, there still might be a criminal

case for whoever is posting these on the Twitter account.

Q. Right.

A. So I still had that to investigate.

Q. Okay. But you determined back on the week of the 13th that
they've already said there is no identification of who's
posting on that?

A. Correct. So at that time then I -- you know, you have those

other two people, and then you have the Twitter account. So
I was not able to prove who posted these things. Doesn't
mean the matter was still not criminal, but I was not able
to determine who posted these.