Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 13:19:47
Document Index: 155874391

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1331', '§ 552', '§ 1391', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§1', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1657', '§ 552', '§ 552', '§ 1', '§ 5', '§ 552', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Complaint For Injunctive Relief For Violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552 | Asian Law Caucus & Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Homeland Security | Electronic Frontier Foundation - JDSupra
Asian Law Caucus & Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityComplaint For Injunctive Relief For Violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552
The suit responds to growing complaints by U.S. citizens and immigrants of excessive or repeated screenings by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. ALC, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization, received more than 20 complaints from Northern California residents last year who said they were grilled about their families, religious practices, volunteer activities, political beliefs, or associations when returning to the United States from travels abroad. In addition, customs agents examined travelers' books, business cards collected from friends and colleagues, handwritten notes, personal photos, laptop computer files, and cell phone directories, and sometimes made copies of this information.
This is EFF's Complaint For Injunctive Relief For Violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552 filed on February 7, 2008. Download PDF 1 Shirin Sinnar, State Bar No. 230005 shirins@asianlawcaucus. org 2 Asian Law Caucus 939 Market St., Suite 201 3 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel (415) 896-1701 4 Fax (415) 896-1702 5 Marcia Hofmann, State Bar No. 250087 marcia@ef. org 6 Electronic Frontier Foundation 454 Shotwell Street 7 San Francisco, CA 94110 Tel (415) 436-9333 E-Ming 8 Fax (415) 436-9993 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asian Law Caucus and Electronic Frontier Foundation 10 Cyr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 ASIAN LAW CAUCUS Qvase Q 0 842 14 0 and )COMPLAIINT FOR INJUNCTIVE 15 RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 16 5 U.S.C. § 552 Plaintiffs, ) 17 vs. ) 18 19 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF) HOMELAND SECURITY, ) 20 Defendant. ) 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 1. The Asian Law Caucus ("ALC") and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") 24 (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") bring this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 25 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief to enforce their right to agency records 26 from Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), a component of Defendant Department of 27 Homeland Security ("DHS"). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek release of agency records concerning 28 CBP's policies and procedures on the questioning, search, and inspection of travelers entering or 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 returning to the United States at ports of entry. 2 JURISDICTION 3 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal 4 jurisdiction over the parties under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 5 VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 6 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1391(e). 8 4. Assignment to the San Francisco division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) 9 and (d) because a substantial portion of the events'giving rise to this action occurred in this district 10 and division, where Plaintiffs are headquartered. 11 PARTIES 12 5. Plaintiff ALC is a not-for-proft corporation established under the laws of the 13 State of California, based in San Francisco, California. ALC is the nation's frst legal and civil 14 rights organization serving Asian American and Pacifc Islander communities. Recognizing that 15 social, economic, political, and racial inequalities continue to exist in the United States, ALC is 16 committed to the pursuit of equality for all sectors of society. As part of this mission, ALC works 17 to curb racial and ethnic profling, employment discrimination, and other civil rights violations 18 targeting Muslims, Middle Easterners, and South Asians in the United States. Over the past year, 19 ALC has received complaints from more than twenty residents of Northern California who report 20 that they were subjected to lengthy secondary inspections, searches, and interviews at U.S. ports of 21 entry, including San Francisco International Airport. In response, ALC conducts outreach events 22 and trainings and disseminates information to help community members understand their legal and 23 civil rights in these contexts. ALC also represents several clients in matters relating to their 24 questioning and search at the airport. 25 6. Plaintiff EFF is a not-for-proft corporation established under the laws of the 26 State of California, with offces in San Francisco, California and Washington, DC. EFF is a donor-27 supported membership organization that works to inform policymakers and the general public 28 about civil liberties issues related to technology, and to act as a defender of those liberties. 2 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 Specifcally, EFF strives to protect the rights of free expression, freedom of the press, fair use, 2 anonymity, security, and privacy among many others, as they relate to computing and the Internet. 3 EFF seeks to inform the public on these issues through several means, including a frequently 4 visited web site and an online newsletter. In support of its mission, EFF frequently uses the FOIA 5 to obtain and disseminate information concerning the activities of federal agencies. 6 7. Defendant DHS is a Department of the Executive Branch of the United States 7 government and is an "agency" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(0(1). CBP is a component 8 within Defendant DHS. CBP is subjecting many travelers returning from abroad, including United 9 States citizens and legal permanent residents from Northern California, to lengthy questioning and 10 intrusive searches. Plaintiffs seek agency records in order to determine what policies and 11 procedures exist governing CBP's questioning and searches of individuals at the nation's ports of 12 entry. CBP has possession of the records sought by Plaintiffs, and is responsible for responding to 13 Plaintiffs' records request. 14 FACTS 15 A. CBP Subiects Many Travelers to Repeated and/or Excessive Screenings at the Border 16 8. In recent years, CBP officials have been carrying out border inspections in a 17 manner that raises signifcant civil liberties concerns. Many Northern California residents, 18 including United States citizens, have reported to Plaintiffs that CBP offcials subjected them to 19 lengthy and intrusive questioning upon their return to the United States. Similar stories of repeated 20 and/or invasive screenings at the border have been discussed by the national news media. See, e.g, 21 Ellen Nakashima, Terror Suspect List Yields Few Arrests; 20, 000 Detentions in '06 Rile Critics, 22 Wash. Post, Aug. 25, 2007, at Al; Neil MacFarquhar, Borders Spell Trouble for Arab-American, 23 N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 29, 2007, §1, at 25; Molly Kavanaugh, Do Guards at the Border Cross a 24 Line?, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), Apr. 8, 2007, at Al. 25 9. According to complaints received by Plaintiffs and media accounts, CBP 26 officials have questioned individuals at length on such subjects as their families, religious practices 27 and associations, political beliefs, volunteer activities, educational background, and previous 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 travels. In addition, travelers report that CBP agents have inspected highly personal items, such as 2 their reading material, business cards collected from friends and colleagues, handwritten notes, 3 personal photographs, and cell phone directories, and have sometimes made copies of this 4 information. CBP offcers have also opened travelers' laptop computers to examine their saved 5 files and look at their stored browser information. Individuals who protest such questioning or 6 searches have been told that they have no choice but to cooperate as they are at an international 7 border. Travelers report feeling anxious, fearful, and helpless in these situations, particularly 8 because they have little understanding of their legal rights to remain silent or access legal counsel 9 in this setting. 10 10. Many individuals allege that they face this level of scrutiny every time they 11 travel, raising the concern that they are being singled out because of racial, ethnic, or religious 12 profiling, or because their names are mistakenly fagged in a CBP watch list or national security 13 database. Portions of the government's main terrorist watch list, the Terrorist Screening Center 14 Database ("TSDB"), are used by CBP to screen international travelers. The TSDB has been the 15 subject of widespread criticism. In fall 2007, for instance, both the Inspector General and the 16 Government Accountability Offce issued reports spotlighting the TSDB's spiraling growth rate, 17 persistent accuracy problems, and inadequate opportunities for redress. See Gov't Accountability 18 Office (GAO), Terrorist Watch List Screening: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Management 19 Oversight, Reduce Vulnerabilities in Agency Screening Processes, and Expand Use of the List 20 (Oct. 2007); U.S. Dep't of Justice Offce of the Inspector General (OIG), Follow-Up Audit of the 21 Terrorist Screening Center (Sept. 2007). 22 B. CBP Has Failed to Provide Records as Required under the FOIA 23 11. On October 31, 2007, ALC and EFF faxed and sent via postal mail a letter to 24 CBP pursuant to the FOIA requesting disclosure of the following records generated from 25 September 11, 2001, to the present: 26 27 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 • Policies and procedures on the questioning of travelers, specifcally as follows: 2 a. Policies and procedures on the questioning of travelers regarding political views, 3 religious practices, and other activities potentially covered by the First Amendment; 4 b. Policies and procedures for responding to a traveler's refusal to answer questions; 5 c. Policies and procedures for permitting a traveler to access legal counsel or invoke a right to remain silent during inspection at the border; and 67 • Policies and procedures on inspections and searches of travelers' property, specifcally as follows: 8 a. Policies and procedures on the photocopying, reproduction, and retention of written 9 materials obtained through border searches, including documents that CBP offcers have found not to violate the law; 10 11 b. Policies and procedures on conducting searches and duplicating fles from laptop computers, MP3 players, digital cameras, cell phones, and other electronic devices; 12 c. Copies of the two 1986 Customs Directives, Review, Copying and Seizure of 13 Documents (Customs Directive 3300-04) and Restrictions on Importation of Seditious Matter (Customs Directive 2210-01), and any amendments or revisions to 14 these materials; 15 d. Policies and procedures on the protection of confdential information in travelers' 16 possession, such as information covered by trade secrets, attorney-client privilege, health privacy laws, or other legal protections. 17 The letter sent by ALC and EFF is attached as Exhibit A. 18 12. On January 2, 2008, ALC received a letter from Mark Hanson, Acting Director 19 of the FOIA Division of the Offce of International Trade at CBP. This letter was undated but 20 came in an envelope postmarked December 26, 2007. Mr. Hanson's letter stated that CBP had 21 received the Plaintiffs' FOIA request and would "act with all due diligence to process this request 22 as soon as possible." The letter also explained that while CBP had determined that it had records 23 responsive to the Plaintiffs' request, it required a time extension to collect the large number of 24 records requested. The letter did not state which documents would be provided or withheld from 25 Plaintiffs and the reasons therefore, did not inform Plaintiffs of their right to appeal to the head of 26 the agency, and did not declare whether the Plaintiffs would be granted a public interest fee waiver 27 and "news media" fee status, as the Plaintiffs had requested. Moreover, the letter did not 28 specify 5 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 an anticipated date by which the records request would be processed or suggest an alternative time 2 frame for processing. This letter is attached as Exhibit B. 3 13. Since Mr. Hanson's letter, Plaintiffs have not received any further 4 communication from CBP regarding the records request. 5 14. The FOIA provides that, upon receiving a request for records, an agency shall 6 make the records promptly available, shall determine within 20 working days afer receipt of the 7 request whether to comply with the request, and shall immediately notify the person making the 8 request of the agency's determination and the reasons therefore. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), 9 (a)(6)(A)(i), (a)(6)(c). More than 20 working days have passed since CBP received Plaintiffs' 10 FOIA request, and Plaintiffs have neither received a determination regarding that request nor any 11 notice of the date on which CBP intends to make a determination regarding Plaintiffs' request. See 12 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i)-(ii). The FOIA allows an agency to extend the time limit for issuance of 13 a determination by 10 additional working days when the agency provides written notice to the 14 requesting party, sets forth "unusual circumstances" for the extension, and provides a date by 15 which the agency expects to dispatch its determination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i). In the present 16 case, CBP has failed to fulfll the requirements for an extension, and the 30-working-day statutory 17 extended period has been exceeded. 18 15. Plaintiffs have exhausted all applicable administrative remedies. 19 16. CBP has wrongfully failed to release the requested records to Plaintiffs. 20 CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Violation of FOIA for Failure to Make Promptly Available Records Sought by Plaintiffs' Request 22 17. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 23 16 above, inclusive. 24 18. Plaintiffs ALC and EFF have a legal right under the FOIA to obtain the agency 25 records they requested on October 31, 2007, and there exists no legal basis for CBP's failure to 26 make available such records. 27 19. CBP's failure to make promptly available the records sought by Plaintiffs' 28 6 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca1 request violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(A)(i), and (a)(6)(C). 2 20. Plaintiffs have exhausted all applicable administrative remedies with respect to 3 CBP's wrongful withholding of the requested records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). 4 21. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure 5 of the requested documents. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: 7 1. Order Defendant DHS and its component CBP to disclose the requested records 8 in their entireties and make copies available to Plaintiffs; 9 2. Expedite this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a); 10 3. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and 11 4. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 12 Dated: February 7, 2008 Respectfully submitted, 13 .14 15 Shirin Sinnar, Esq. ASIAN LAW CAUCUS 16 939 Market St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103 17 Telephone: (415) 896-1701 Facsimile: (415) 896-1702 18 19 20 Marcia Hofmann, Esq. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 21 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 22 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 23 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Asian Law Caucus and 24 Electronic Frontier Foundation 25 26 27 28 7 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caEXHIBIT A Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caAian Lw Caucus Asian Law Caucus, Inc. 939 Market Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 896-1701 Fax: (415) 896-1702 www. asianlawcaucus. org October 31, 2007 By Facsimile and U.S. Mail Freedom of Information Act Request U.S. Customs and Border Protection 1300 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Attn: Mint Annex Building, FOIA Division Washington, DC 20229 Dear Sir or Madam: This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and is submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus ("ALC") and the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"). ALC is a public interest legal organization based in San Francisco, CA that promotes, advances, and represents the legal and civil rights of Asian and Pacifc Islander communities. It is the nation's oldest civil rights organization serving Asian American communities. EFF is a nonproft public interest organization that exists to protect and enhance our core civil liberties in the digital age. Based in San Francisco, EFF is a membership-supported organization that works on issues of free expression, freedom of press, fair use, anonymity, security, and privacy among many others, as they relate to computing and the Internet. -Background Over the past year, ALC and EFF have received numerous inquiries from U.S. citizens and residents in Northern California regarding CBP interviews and searches at U.S. ports of entry. Many individuals have expressed concerns related to lengthy secondary inspections, searches, and interviews, including questioning about lawful religious and political activities. Others have expressed concerns about the detailed examination by CBP offcers of reading material and sensitive personal information, including books, appointment calendars, notebooks, laptop computer files, cell phone directories, and other materials. A number of travelers, including U.S. citizens, report that they face this level of scrutiny every time they travel, raising the concern that their names may be improperly fagged in a CBP watch list or national security database. Many individuals have used redress mechanisms established by the U.S. government for those affected by watch lists and other screening procedures, but report no improvement in their experience.' 1Similar stories of repeated screenings at U.S. borders have been reported by national news media. See, e.g, More Muslim Travelers Interrogated and Searched (CBS-5 television broadcast, Oct. 5, 2007); Ellen Nakashima, Collecting of Details on Travelers Documented, WASH. POST, Sept. 22, 2007, at Al; Ellen Nakashima, Terror Suspect List Yields Few Arrests; 20, 000 Detentions in '06 Rile Critics, WASH. POST, Aug. 25, 2007, at A 1; Neil MacFarquhar, Borders Spell Trouble fr Arab American, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 29, 2007, § 1, at 25; Molly Kavanaugh, Do Guards at the Border Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caRecords Request We are seeking the following CBP agency records generated from September 11, 2001, to the present:2 (1) Policies and procedures on the questioning of travelers, specifcally as follows: (a) Policies and procedures on the questioning of travelers regarding political views, religious practices, and other activities potentially covered by the First Amendment; (b) Policies and procedures for responding to a traveler's refusal to answer questions; (c) Policies and procedures for permitting a traveler to access legal counsel or invoke a right to remain silent during inspection at the border; and (2) Policies and procedures on inspections and searches of travelers' property, specifcally as follows: (a) Policies and procedures on the photocopying, reproduction, and retention of written materials obtained through border searches, including documents that CBP officers have found not to violate the law; (b) Policies and procedures on conducting searches and duplicating fles from laptop computers, MP3 players, digital cameras, cell phones, and other electronic devices; (c) Copies of the two 1986 Customs Directives, Review, Copying and Seizure of Documents (Customs Directive 3300-04) and Restrictions on Importation of Seditious Matter (Customs Directive 2210-01), and any amendments or revisions to these materials; (d) Policies and procedures on the protection of confdential information in travelers' possession, such as information covered by trade secrets, attorneyclient privilege, health privacy laws, or other legal protections. Cross a Line? THE PLAIN DEALER (CLEVELAND), Apr. 8, 2007, at Al; Neil MacFarquhar, US Muslims Say Terror Fears Hamper Their Right to Travel, N.Y. TIMEs, June 1, 2006, at Al; Jef Coen, ACLUExpands Profling Lawsuit, CHI. TRIB., June 20, 2006, at 6; Kelly Kennedy, Chicagoan Stranded at the Border; What's in a Name? Trouble, That's What, CHI. TRIB., June 29, 2005, at 1. 2 The term "records" as used herein includes, but is not limited to, agency records including memoranda, directives, manuals, correspondence, training materials, and other written records as well as records maintained on ceolemctprounteicrs c,ommunications, videotapes, audio recordings, or in any other format. 2 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caRequest for "News Media" Fee Status We ask that search and review fees not be assessed for this request because EFF qualifes as a representative of the news media pursuant to the FOIA and 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(b)(6). In seeking this classifcation, we note that the Department of Homeland Security has already recognized that EFF qualifes as a "news media" requester, based upon the publication activities set forth below (see DHS stipulation, attached hereto). EFF is a non-proft public interest organization that works "to protect and enhance our core civil liberties in the digital age."3 One of EFF's primary objectives is "to educate the press, policymakers and the general public about online civil liberties."4 To accomplish this goal, EFF routinely and systematically disseminates information in several ways. First, EFF maintains a frequently visited web site, http://www.efforg, which received 43,403,630 hits in June 2007 -an average of 60,282 hits per hour. The web site reports the latest developments and contains in-depth information about a variety of civil liberties and intellectual property issues. EFF has regularly published an online newsletter, the EFFector, since 1990. The EFFector currently has more than 77,000 subscribers. A complete archive of past EFFectors is available at http://www.eforg/efector/. Furthermore, EFF publishes a blog that highlights the latest news from around the Internet. DeepLinks (http://www.efforg/deeplinks/) reports and analyzes newsworthy developments in technology. It also provides miniLinks, which direct readers to other news articles and commentary on these issues. DeepLinks had 518,977 hits in June 2007.5 In addition to reporting hi-tech developments, EFF staff members have presented research and idne-pth analysis on technology issues in no fewer than eighteen white papers published since T20h0e2se. papers, available at http://www.eforg/wp/, provide information and commentary on such diverse issues as electronic voting, free speech, privacy, and intellectual property. EFF has also published several books to educate the public about technology and civil liberties issues. Everybody's Guide to the Internet (MIT Press 1994), frst published electronically as The Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet in 1993, was translated into several languages, and is still sold by Powell's Books (http://www.powells.com). EFF also produced Protecting Yourself Online: The Definitive Resource on Safty, Freedom & Privacy in Cyberspace (HarperEdge 1998), a "comprehensive guide to self-protection in the electronic frontier," which can be purchased via Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com). Finally, Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics & Chip Design (O'Reilly 1998) revealed technical details on encryption security to 3 Guidestar Basic Report, Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGs Report.do?npold=561625 (last visited Oct. 24, 2007). 4Id 5These figures include hits from RSS feeds through which subscribers can easily track updates to mDineiLeipnLkisn.ks and 3 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6cathe public. The book is available online at http://cryptome.org/cracking-des.htm and for sale at Amazon.com. Most recently, EFF has begun broadcasting podcasts of interviews with EFF staff and outside experts. Line Noise is a fve-minute audio broadcast on EFF's current work, pending legislation, and technology-related issues. A listing of Line Noise podcasts is available at feed://www.eforg/rss/linenoisemp3.xml and feed://www.efforg/rss/linenoiseogg.xml. These podcasts were downloaded more than 2,400 times from EFF's web site in June. Due to these extensive publication activities, EFF is a "representative of the news media" under the FOIA and agency regulations. Request for a Public Interest Fee Waiver ALC and EFF are entitled to a waiver of duplication fees because disclosure of the rreecqouredsste isd in the public interest within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(a)(iii) and 6 C.F.R. § 5.11 (k). This standard is satisfied where requesters demonstrate that disclosure is "likely contrtoibute signifcantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government" and that disclosure is "not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester." 6 C.F.R. § 5.11 (k)(i), (ii). This request meets both these criteria. First, the requested records clearly concern the "operations or activities of the government." 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(2)(i). The records sought pertain to policies and procedures of CBP, a federal government agency, with regard to CBP border inspections and searches. The connection to government operations and activities is "direct and clear." Id Second, the information sought is "likely to contribute" to "an understanding of ogpoevreartniomnesn otr activities." 6 C.F.R. § 5.11 (k)(2)(ii). The requested records will enhance the public's understanding of CBP policies and practices at the border, including practices relating to the questioning and search of travelers and the use of the information obtained from such inspections. Third, the records sought will result in greater "public understanding" of CBP policies and practices, not just greater awareness within the requesting organizations. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(2)(iii). ALC will disseminate the information through its website and regular newsletter; e-mail "blasts" to members and supporters; presentations before ethnic and religious community groups, universities, and other public fora; interviews with national news media; and in written materials circulated tinhe Asian American community and the public at large. EFF will make the information it obtains under the FOIA available to the public and the media through its website and newsletter, which highlight developments concerning privacy and civil liberties issues, and/or other channels discussed more fully above. As an organization already recognized by the Department of Homeland Security as a representative of the news media, see supra, page 3, EFF is entitled to a presumption that it meets this requirement. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11 (k)(2)(iii). Fourth, the disclosure will contribute "signifcantly" to the public's knowledge and understanding of CBP border inspections. 6 C.F.R. § 5.1 l (k)(2)(iv). While recent news articles about the border inspection process suggest a high level of public interest in this issue, see note 1 supra, the cnoevwesrage also refects an absence of information about the particular issues addressed in this FOIA request. Queries from community members received by ALC and EFF also suggest a widespread 4 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6calack of understanding of travelers' rights and obligations with respect to border inspections. Disclosure of the requested records will signifcantly enhance public understanding of CBP policies and practices related to border questioning, searches, detentions, and the protection of individual rights by the agency. Finally, a fee waiver is also appropriate because neither ALC nor EFF has any commercial interest in the disclosure of the requested records. 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(k)(3). Both organizations are nonprofit organizations with 501 (c)(3) tax-exempt status, and derive no commercial beneft from the information at issue. Furnishing Records As you are aware, the FOIA provides that if any portions of a fle are exempt from release, the remainder must be released. If you determine that any of the documents requested are exempt from release, please advise us of the specifc exemptions you believe to be applicable. Please furnish records to Shirin Sinnar, Asian Law Caucus, 939 Market Street, Suite 201, San Francisco, CA 94103. As provided in the FOTA, we expect to receive a reply within 20 working days. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Shirin Sinnar at ALC at (415) 896-1701 ext. 114 or Marcia Hofmann at EFF at (415) 436-9333 ext. 116. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Shirin Sinnar Marcia Hofmann Staf Attorney Staff Attorney Asian Law Caucus Electronic Frontier Foundation 5 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caATTACHMENT: DHS Stipulation to EFF Status as "News Media" Requester 6 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caCase 1:06-cv-01988-ESH Document 15 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Plaintiff, V. ) Civil Action No. 06-1988 (ESH) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant. STIPULATED DISMSSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS), by counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Defendant DHS has granted news media status to Plaintiff EFF based on the representations contained in EFF's FOIA requests, which demonstrate that EFF is an "entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public." 6 C.F.R. § 5.11(b)(6). Defendant DHS will continue to regard Plaintiff EFF as a "representative of the news media" absent a change in circumstances that indicates that EFF is no longer an "entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public." 6 C.F.R. § 5.11 (b)(6). 2. Accordingly, the parties herewith agree to the dismissal of Plaintif EFF's Second Cause of Action, related to EFF's status as a "representative of the news media." 3. The parties further agree that each will pay its own fees and costs for work on the dismissed claim. SO STIPULATED AND AGREED this 27'h day of February, 2007. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caCase 1:06-cv-01988-ESH Document 15 Filed 02/27/2007 Page 2 of 2 /s/David L. Sobel DAVID L. SOBEL PETER D. KEISLER D.C. Bar 360418 Assistant Attorney General MARCIA HOFMANN JEFFREY A. TAYLOR D.C. Bar 484136 United States Attorney ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. D.C. Bar 418925 Suite 650 Assistant Branch Director Washington, D.C. 20009 U.S. Department of Justice (202) 797-9009 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Counsel fr Plaintif /s/John R. Coleman JOHN R. COLEMAN Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Room 6118 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-4505 Counsel for Defndant Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caEXHIBIT B Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6caU.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 US. Customs and Border Protection DIS-2-OT: FD NM 2008F1276 Ms. Shirin Sinnar 939 Market Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94103 Dear Ms. Sinnar: This is in reference to and acknowledgement of your request made under the Freedom of Information Act in which you forwarded to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requesting "Policies and procedures on the questioning of travelers,... and Policies and procedures on inspections and searches of travelers' property, ... .". We attempt to process requests in order of their receipt. Accordingly, we must frst process similar requests previously received from other persons and organizations. Nevertheless, we shall act with all due diligence to process this request as soon as possible. We have completed a review of your request and made the determination that CBP has responsive records to your request, however, due to the broad and expansive nature of your request and the "voluminous" amount of records that must be located, compiled, and reviewed a time extension is required. Should you care to narrow the scope of your request you refer to fle number 2008F1276, otherwise we will disseminate the information you requested as quickly as possible. We will in addition make every effort to release any responsive records as they are located and reviewed. Thank you for your interest in U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Mark Hanson Acting Director, FOIA Division Office of International Trade. Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=fac0de8e-d107-4c44-868e-1473c2e2f6ca
Download PDF[1485KB]