What the July 29 exchange establishes
At 8:29 a.m., Undersheriff Jarret Benov emailed a resident with whom he said he had been communicating and asked for an administrator at Amador Unified’s transportation department. He wrote that he had been told the resident worked there, and requested a contact who could address “policy matters and employee issues.” The resident corrected that assumption at 8:46 a.m. Benov replied with an apology at 8:49 a.m. The published record is limited to those three messages.
Context and timing
Documented records-request activity In the weeks before this exchange, the requester submitted a June 10, 2026 public records request about the Flock/ALPR program, followed by June 18 and June 19 requests seeking additional program, oversight and procurement records. On July 28, one day before Benov's inquiry, the Sheriff’s Office issued a consolidated response covering 37 request items. These dated archive entries establish the records-request timeline.
Requester's account The requester also reports that he had been publicly questioning and criticizing the Sheriff’s Office about the Flock camera program during this period. This describes the requester’s account of the surrounding circumstances; the individual public comments are not independently documented in this particular report.
Benov’s July 29 email expressly referred to their recent communications. The inquiry followed the documented records-request activity, but the three emails do not establish whether the inquiry was related to those requests or public criticism, or why Benov believed the requester worked for the school district. After the requester corrected that assumption, Benov apologized.
The full three-email exchange
All three relevant emails are reproduced below in chronological order, so the inquiry and the responses can be read without opening another file. This is a privacy-redacted HTML rendering of the original email bodies, not an agency-produced transcript. The requester’s identifying information, routine email signatures and repeated quoted reply chains have been omitted.
Benov’s inquiry
[REQUESTER NAME REDACTED],
Since we've been communicating recently, I was hoping you could point me in the right direction. I am looking for an administrator level contact for the school's transportation department and was told that you work there. Could you recommend a point of contact that is capable of addressing policy matters and employee issues? Thanks in advnace for any help you can offer.
Jarret
Requester’s correction
Good morning,
Your source is incorrect, I do not work for the school district.
[REQUESTER NAME REDACTED]
Benov’s apology
Ok, my apologies. Thanks.
The wording of each displayed message is preserved from the published redacted source, including the original spelling. The conversation shifted to a separate Flock discussion after these three emails; that later correspondence is not included here. Downloadable redacted source files remain available below and in the document sidebar.
Sources Three original July 29, 2026 EMLs · redacted PDF, TXT and individual EML copies
The HTML exchange above, downloadable PDF and TXT, and three individual EML derivatives were prepared directly from the original messages supplied to the archive. The requester’s name and email address, original mail-routing headers and quoted reply chains are not published.
Read the three redacted messages (PDF)What the correspondence does—and does not—establish
The recipient regarded the unexpected employment-related inquiry as concerning in the context of earlier communications with the Sheriff’s Office. That concern is an interpretation, not a documented finding about Benov’s intent. The three emails do not establish that Benov intended a threat, contacted an employer or attempted retaliation. They do establish that he made the inquiry, received a correction and apologized.
Inquiry, correction and apology
The three original EMLs establish the wording and chronology of those messages.
Source and purpose
The correspondence does not identify who supplied the employment information or independently explain the intended purpose of the administrator referral.
Scope of this published record
The same email thread later turned to an unrelated request for a public discussion about Flock cameras and ALPR policy. Those later emails are intentionally excluded from this focused record; they are not represented here as part of the inquiry and apology. The original, unredacted EMLs are not hosted publicly. The downloadable EMLs are marked privacy-redacted derivatives prepared from the original messages.