INTERVIEW WITH <SANITIZED> OFFICE OF SECURITY

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 01430366
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 28, 2022
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2017
• Case Number: F-2007-00094
• Publication Date: May 31, 1973

_Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01430366
(b)(6)
31 May 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Interview with
Office of Security
1. On 31 May 1973 I questioned about what he
had said at the Advanced Intelligence Seminar No. 6 and the extent
and nature of the relations he had had with the Montgomery County
Police. He said that he and others had been encouraged to discuss
their work and the problems related thereto with other Seminar
members and told that what they said would be "non-attributable."
In this context he had discussed the Office of Security's relations
with local Police Forces including the Police Force in Montgomery
County. He said he mentioned the "Ballou Case" as an example
of how the Montgomery County Police had used equipment provided
by the Agency in their work, but denied that he had said or implied
that the Agency was "involved" in the Ballou case. He said that he
had also related to the other Seminar members the fact that the
Agency had provided assistance to the Secret Service in connection
with the protection of the President and Vice President and that he
and others had been detailed to work with the Secret Service on
counter-audio activities at the 1968 Democratic National Convention
in Chicago and the Republican National Convention in Miami. I
asked who was on the Chicago detail, if he was
detailed to protect the Vice President. He said that he was detailed
to Tom Kelly, Deputy Chief of the Secret Service and worked in
effect as a member of the Secret Service under Mr. Kelly.
2. I questioned
r as to whether his relations with
the Montgomery County Police was training oriented, equipment
oriented, or if he had engaged in any operations or activities with
the police. He said his relations with the Police had been entirely
equipment oriented and had been limited to the Chief of Police and
one or two senior Inspectors. The extent of assistance given con-
sisted of the Agency providing the Police with surplus technical
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01430366
Approved for Release: 20117/01/18 C01430366 DI
equipment which was of no further use to the Agency, and
briefing them as to its use. He said he would not define these
briefings as training, but admitted that it might be so construed.
3. said that his only knowledge of the "Ballou
Case", except what he had read in the papers, came from one
telephone conversation he had with Iris pe ctor of the
Montgomery County Police sometime after accounts of the Ballou
shooting had appeared in the press. He said the Inspector called
to thank him for some amplifying equipment the Agency had given
the Police and mentioned that it had probably saved the life of a
policeman. He said that the Inspector explained to him that the
account of the incident appearing in the press was not the whole
story, that with the aid of the equipment the Agency had provided
the Police had been able to intercept a telephone call from Ballou
to a friend in which Ballou had outlined plans to "kill a cop: ."
The Police had then staged a raid to forestall Ballou's plan and it
was during this raid that Ballou was shot. said
that he had had no other conversations with the Montgomery
County Police on that subject. He said he had mentioned it at
the Seminar as an example of the sensitivity involved in the
Agency's dealings with domestic Police Forces. He said he
recalled that there was quite a bit of discussion and argument
by the Seminar members about the propriety of the Agency assist-
ing local police forces and working with the Secret Service in the
U.S., but that he did not recall any extensive discussion about the
Ballou Case and that at no time had he said that the Agency was
directly involved, said he remembered that
seemed particularly concerned about the Agency's involve-
ment in domestic activities and that sometime later, around
January or February 1972, talked to Colonel White about his
concern and Colonel White in turn talked to the Director of Security.
Since that date, he said, he has not had any further direct contact
with the Montgomery County Police, based upon orders of the
Director of Security.
Inspector
- -
JeLe..
00652
Approved for Release: 2017/01/18 C01430366
SP,